Ethical frameworks in clinical research processes during COVID-19: a scoping review

ObjectivesIn response to the COVID-19 pandemic there have been significant developments in research, its conduct and the supporting ethical framework. While many protocols have been delayed, halted or modified, other research efforts have been accelerated, generating controversy. The goal of this pa...

Ausführliche Beschreibung

Gespeichert in:
Bibliographische Detailangaben
Veröffentlicht in:BMJ open 2021-07, Vol.11 (7), p.e047076-e047076
Hauptverfasser: Kasherman, Lawrence, Madariaga, Ainhoa, Liu, Qin, Bonilla, Luisa, McMullen, Michelle, Liu, Shiru (Lucy), Wang, Lisa, Fazelzad, Rouhi, Karakasis, Katherine, Heesters, Ann M, Oza, Amit M
Format: Artikel
Sprache:eng
Schlagworte:
Online-Zugang:Volltext
Tags: Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
Beschreibung
Zusammenfassung:ObjectivesIn response to the COVID-19 pandemic there have been significant developments in research, its conduct and the supporting ethical framework. While many protocols have been delayed, halted or modified, other research efforts have been accelerated, generating controversy. The goal of this paper is to determine the rates of references surrounding the ethical oversight of research as reported in current COVID-19-related research publications.DesignScoping review.SettingPopulation-based observational or interventional studies from December 2019 to May 2020 with sample size of two or more. Studies were searched through electronic databases including Medline, EMBASE, and Cochrane CENTRAL Register of Controlled Trials.ParticipantsEligibility criteria included participants within published studies who tested positive for COVID-19.Main outcomes and measuresData were extracted and charting methods included taking note of references to ethical frameworks, institutional review board (IRB), ethics committee (EC) or research ethics board (REB) involvement, consent processes, and other variables.Results11 556 articles were screened, with 656 included in the final analysis. References to ethics were present in 530 (80.8%) studies, with 491 (74.8%) involving IRB/ECs/REBs and 126 (19.2%) not referencing ethics. Consent processes were outlined in 201 (30.6%) studies, with 198 (30.2%) reporting that they obtained consent waivers, however, 257 (39.2%) did not mention consent at all. Differences (p
ISSN:2044-6055
2044-6055
DOI:10.1136/bmjopen-2020-047076