IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jijerp/v19y2022i18p11673-d916576.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

A Survey on Methodological Issues of Clinical Research Studies Reviewed by Independent Ethic Committees during the COVID-19 Pandemic in Italy

Author

Listed:
  • Alberto Milanese

    (Department of Public Health and Infectious Diseases, Sapienza University of Rome, 00185 Rome, Italy)

  • Paolo Trerotoli

    (Department of Biomedical Science and Human Oncology, University of Bari Aldo Moro, 70121 Bari, Italy)

  • Annarita Vestri

    (Department of Public Health and Infectious Diseases, Sapienza University of Rome, 00185 Rome, Italy)

  • on behalf of the Biostatisticians Collaborative Group and SISMEC Directive Council

    (Biostatisticians Collaborative Group and SISMEC Directive Council are listed in acknowledgments.)

Abstract

The struggle for information and the hasty search for answers caused by the COVID-19 pandemic threatened the possibility of lowering study quality, as well as ethical committees’ review standards during the outbreak. Our investigation aimed to assess the impact of COVID-19 on the quality of clinical research studies submitted to Italian Ethics Committees in the period between April and July 2020. All 91 Italian ethics committees were contacted via email in order to collect anonymized information on the type and quality of COVID-19-related studies submitted to each committee during the study period. The present study summarizes the characteristics of the 184 study applications collected, pointing out, especially, how the quality of the study population and statistical analysis are crucial variables in determining the study approval. Nevertheless, despite the need for high-quality and open scientific information, especially exacerbated by this particular historical period, only a minority of the ethics committees (20.9%) agreed to share their data; such scarce participation, beyond biasing the representativeness of the results obtained by the present study, more importantly, hinders the broader goal of creating trust between researchers and the general public.

Suggested Citation

  • Alberto Milanese & Paolo Trerotoli & Annarita Vestri & on behalf of the Biostatisticians Collaborative Group and SISMEC Directive Council, 2022. "A Survey on Methodological Issues of Clinical Research Studies Reviewed by Independent Ethic Committees during the COVID-19 Pandemic in Italy," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 19(18), pages 1-9, September.
    • Handle: RePEc:gam:jijerp:v:19:y:2022:i:18:p:11673-:d:916576
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/1660-4601/19/18/11673/pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/1660-4601/19/18/11673/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Helen Pearson, 2021. "How COVID broke the evidence pipeline," Nature, Nature, vol. 593(7858), pages 182-185, May.
    2. Nicole Mather, 2020. "How we accelerated clinical trials in the age of coronavirus," Nature, Nature, vol. 584(7821), pages 326-326, August.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Manh-Toan Ho & Manh-Tung Ho & Quan-Hoang Vuong, 2021. "Total SciComm: A Strategy for Communicating Open Science," Publications, MDPI, vol. 9(3), pages 1-10, July.
    2. Ahmad Yaman Abdin & Francesco De Pretis & Jürgen Landes, 2023. "Fast Methods for Drug Approval: Research Perspectives for Pandemic Preparedness," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 20(3), pages 1-17, January.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:gam:jijerp:v:19:y:2022:i:18:p:11673-:d:916576. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: MDPI Indexing Manager (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.mdpi.com .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.