41
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
1 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found
      Is Open Access

      Structural under-reporting of informed consent, data handling and sharing, ethical approval, and application of Open Science principles as proxies for study quality conduct in COVID-19 research: a systematic scoping review

      research-article

      Read this article at

      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Abstract

          Background

          The COVID-19 pandemic required science to provide answers rapidly to combat the outbreak. Hence, the reproducibility and quality of conducting research may have been threatened, particularly regarding privacy and data protection, in varying ways around the globe. The objective was to investigate aspects of reporting informed consent and data handling as proxies for study quality conduct.

          Methods

          A systematic scoping review was performed by searching PubMed and Embase. The search was performed on November 8th, 2020. Studies with hospitalised patients diagnosed with COVID-19 over 18 years old were eligible for inclusion. With a focus on informed consent, data were extracted on the study design, prestudy protocol registration, ethical approval, data anonymisation, data sharing and data transfer as proxies for study quality. For reasons of comparison, data regarding country income level, study location and journal impact factor were also collected.

          Results

          972 studies were included. 21.3% of studies reported informed consent, 42.6% reported waivers of consent, 31.4% did not report consent information and 4.7% mentioned other types of consent. Informed consent reporting was highest in clinical trials (94.6%) and lowest in retrospective cohort studies (15.0%). The reporting of consent versus no consent did not differ significantly by journal impact factor (p=0.159). 16.8% of studies reported a prestudy protocol registration or design. Ethical approval was described in 90.9% of studies. Information on anonymisation was provided in 17.0% of studies. In 257 multicentre studies, 1.2% reported on data sharing agreements, and none reported on Findable, Accessible, Interoperable and Reusable data principles. 1.2% reported on open data. Consent was most often reported in the Middle East (42.4%) and least often in North America (4.7%). Only one report originated from a low-income country.

          Discussion

          Informed consent and aspects of data handling and sharing were under-reported in publications concerning COVID-19 and differed between countries, which strains study quality conduct when in dire need of answers.

          Related collections

          Most cited references65

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: found
          • Article: found
          Is Open Access

          The PRISMA 2020 statement: an updated guideline for reporting systematic reviews

          The Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) statement, published in 2009, was designed to help systematic reviewers transparently report why the review was done, what the authors did, and what they found. Over the past decade, advances in systematic review methodology and terminology have necessitated an update to the guideline. The PRISMA 2020 statement replaces the 2009 statement and includes new reporting guidance that reflects advances in methods to identify, select, appraise, and synthesise studies. The structure and presentation of the items have been modified to facilitate implementation. In this article, we present the PRISMA 2020 27-item checklist, an expanded checklist that details reporting recommendations for each item, the PRISMA 2020 abstract checklist, and the revised flow diagrams for original and updated reviews.
            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: not found
            • Article: not found

            World Medical Association Declaration of Helsinki: ethical principles for medical research involving human subjects.

            (2013)
              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: found
              Is Open Access

              The FAIR Guiding Principles for scientific data management and stewardship

              There is an urgent need to improve the infrastructure supporting the reuse of scholarly data. A diverse set of stakeholders—representing academia, industry, funding agencies, and scholarly publishers—have come together to design and jointly endorse a concise and measureable set of principles that we refer to as the FAIR Data Principles. The intent is that these may act as a guideline for those wishing to enhance the reusability of their data holdings. Distinct from peer initiatives that focus on the human scholar, the FAIR Principles put specific emphasis on enhancing the ability of machines to automatically find and use the data, in addition to supporting its reuse by individuals. This Comment is the first formal publication of the FAIR Principles, and includes the rationale behind them, and some exemplar implementations in the community.
                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Journal
                BMJ Glob Health
                BMJ Glob Health
                bmjgh
                bmjgh
                BMJ Global Health
                BMJ Publishing Group (BMA House, Tavistock Square, London, WC1H 9JR )
                2059-7908
                2023
                31 May 2023
                31 May 2023
                : 8
                : 5
                : e012007
                Affiliations
                [1 ]departmentDeparment of Intensive Care Medicine , Maastricht University Medical Centre , Maastricht, The Netherlands
                [2 ]departmentCardiovascular research institute Maastricht (CARIM) , Maastricht University , Maastricht, The Netherlands
                [3 ]departmentAcademy for Postgraduate Medical Training , Maastricht University Medical Center , Maastricht, The Netherlands
                [4 ]departmentSchool of Health Professions Education , Maastricht University , Maastricht, The Netherlands
                [5 ]departmentDepartment of Health Law , Maastricht University Medical Centre , Maastricht, The Netherlands
                [6 ]departmentDivision of Pulmonary, Critical Care and Sleep Medicine , Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Centre , Boston, Massachusetts, USA
                [7 ]departmentLaboratory for Computational Physiology , Massachusetts Institute of Technology , Cambridge, Massachusetts, USA
                [8 ]departmentDepartment of Biostatistics , Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health , Boston, Massachusetts, USA
                [9 ]departmentDepartment of Pediatrics, Stanford Center for Biomedical Ethics , Stanford University , San Jose, California, USA
                [10 ]departmentDepartment of Radiology and Imaging Sciences , Emory University School of Medicine, Emory University , Atlanta, Florida, USA
                [11 ]departmentSchool of Journalism and Media , University of Texas , Austin, Texas, USA
                [12 ]departmentDepartment of Medical Informatics , Amsterdam University Medical Centre, Amsterdam and Amsterdam Public Health, Quality of care The Netherlands , Amsterdam, The Netherlands
                [13 ]departmentDepartment of Development and Regeneration , KU Leuven , Leuven, Belgium
                [14 ]departmentCare and Public Health Research Institute , Maastricht University , Maastricht, The Netherlands
                Author notes
                [Correspondence to ] Dr. Charlotte W E Hendriks; cwe.hendriks@ 123456student.maastrichtuniversity.nl
                Author information
                http://orcid.org/0000-0002-7231-8654
                http://orcid.org/0000-0001-6778-4397
                http://orcid.org/0000-0003-1270-0699
                http://orcid.org/0000-0002-3472-095X
                http://orcid.org/0000-0003-2398-8878
                http://orcid.org/0000-0001-6712-6626
                http://orcid.org/0000-0002-5992-3032
                http://orcid.org/0000-0002-3037-122X
                http://orcid.org/0000-0003-3891-8522
                http://orcid.org/0000-0003-1621-7848
                Article
                bmjgh-2023-012007
                10.1136/bmjgh-2023-012007
                10254958
                37257937
                f66be16e-91ce-47dc-8ff6-5732167089ab
                © Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2023. Re-use permitted under CC BY-NC. No commercial re-use. See rights and permissions. Published by BMJ.

                This is an open access article distributed in accordance with the Creative Commons Attribution Non Commercial (CC BY-NC 4.0) license, which permits others to distribute, remix, adapt, build upon this work non-commercially, and license their derivative works on different terms, provided the original work is properly cited, appropriate credit is given, any changes made indicated, and the use is non-commercial. See:  http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/.

                History
                : 14 February 2023
                : 13 April 2023
                Funding
                Funded by: NIBIB;
                Award ID: EB01720
                Categories
                Original Research
                1506
                2474
                Custom metadata
                unlocked
                free

                covid-19,review,study design
                covid-19, review, study design

                Comments

                Comment on this article