College of Nursing, The Ohio State University, Columbus, OH, United States.
Center for Bioethics and Humanities, College of Medicine, The Ohio State University, Columbus, OH, United States.
Front Public Health. 2022 Mar 1;10:788972. doi: 10.3389/fpubh.2022.788972. eCollection 2022.
The COVID-19 pandemic has been characterized by a lack of clear evidence to guide healthcare professionals, the public and policymakers. The resulting uncertainty, coupled with changing guidelines as additional evidence became available, added to the stress and anxiety reported by decision-makers. Research results are key to providing evidence to guide healthcare decisions. Important questions have arisen about whether various interventions are safe and effective. The evidence found guides those making treatment decisions, and influences those selecting interventions for further evaluation in research studies. As the COVID-19 pandemic intensified, the effectiveness and safety of many pharmaceuticals was queried. Ivermectin will be used to explore the ethics of how healthcare evidence must be critically appraised, even, or especially, during a pandemic. This drug is alleged to be effective in treating COVID-19, with various studies and systematic reviews finding supportive evidence. Some of these have now been linked to concerns about fraud or poor research reporting. This article will focus on the scientific literature and how apparently fraudulent studies were published and influenced treatment decisions, on-going research and public health guidelines. Research evidence is critical during emergencies like pandemics, but urgency should not overtake ethical responsibilities to critically appraise (or evaluate) studies as they become available. These responsibilities apply in various ways to editors, peer-reviewers, news media reporters, and those making treatment decisions, including clinicians, policymakers and the general public. While research article authors have the primary ethical responsibility to reject fraudulent or inaccurate claims, the readers of health research must carefully evaluate all publications. To detect and reject fraudulent healthcare claims, readers need critical appraisal skills that match their level of engagement with those articles. The core principles of critical appraisal will be described in the article, and how they can be adapted for different types of readers. Exemplar tools that develop critical appraisal skills will be noted, with reviews of ivermectin's efficacy explored as examples. As stakeholders in healthcare evidence are increasingly able to identify well-conducted and ethical research they will simultaneously be able to spot and reject fraudulent reports and prevent them from influencing healthcare decisions.
新型冠状病毒肺炎大流行的特点是缺乏明确的证据来指导医疗保健专业人员、公众和政策制定者。由此产生的不确定性,加上随着更多证据的出现而不断变化的指导方针,增加了决策者报告的压力和焦虑。研究结果是为医疗保健决策提供证据的关键。人们提出了许多重要问题,例如各种干预措施是否安全有效。发现的证据指导做出治疗决策的人,并影响那些选择在研究中进一步评估干预措施的人。随着新型冠状病毒肺炎大流行的加剧,许多药物的有效性和安全性受到质疑。伊维菌素将被用于探讨如何批判性地评估医疗保健证据,即使在大流行期间也必须如此。据称,这种药物在治疗新型冠状病毒肺炎方面有效,各种研究和系统评价都发现了支持性证据。其中一些现在已经与对欺诈或研究报告不佳的担忧联系在一起。本文将重点关注科学文献,以及明显欺诈性的研究是如何发表的,并影响治疗决策、正在进行的研究和公共卫生指南。在像大流行这样的紧急情况下,研究证据至关重要,但在紧急情况下,不应忽视批判性评估(或评估)研究的道德责任,因为这些研究随时可用。这些责任以各种方式适用于编辑、同行评审者、新闻媒体记者以及做出治疗决策的人,包括临床医生、政策制定者和公众。虽然研究文章的作者对拒绝欺诈性或不准确的主张负有主要的道德责任,但健康研究的读者必须仔细评估所有出版物。为了发现和拒绝欺诈性的医疗保健主张,读者需要与他们对这些文章的参与程度相匹配的批判性评价技能。本文将描述批判性评价的核心原则,以及如何根据不同类型的读者对其进行调整。将指出发展批判性评价技能的范例工具,并以探索伊维菌素疗效为例进行审查。随着医疗保健证据的利益相关者越来越能够识别出精心设计和合乎道德的研究,他们将能够同时发现和拒绝欺诈性报告,并防止它们影响医疗保健决策。