Suppr超能文献

意大利 COVID-19 大流行期间独立伦理委员会审查的临床研究方法学问题调查。

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

机构信息

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

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

出版信息

Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2022 Sep 16;19(18):11673. doi: 10.3390/ijerph191811673.

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.

摘要

由于 COVID-19 大流行引起的信息争夺和仓促寻找答案,威胁到研究质量的降低,以及伦理委员会在疫情期间的审查标准。我们的调查旨在评估 COVID-19 对 2020 年 4 月至 7 月期间提交给意大利伦理委员会的临床研究质量的影响。通过电子邮件联系了所有 91 个意大利伦理委员会,以收集关于在研究期间提交给每个委员会的 COVID-19 相关研究的类型和质量的匿名信息。本研究总结了收集到的 184 项研究申请的特征,特别是指出研究人群的质量和统计分析是决定研究批准的关键变量。然而,尽管需要高质量和公开的科学信息,尤其是在这个特殊的历史时期,只有少数伦理委员会(20.9%)同意分享他们的数据;这种稀缺的参与,除了使本研究获得的结果的代表性产生偏差之外,更重要的是,阻碍了在研究人员和公众之间建立信任的更广泛目标。

https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/d594/9517254/888d34702d73/ijerph-19-11673-g001.jpg

文献AI研究员

20分钟写一篇综述,助力文献阅读效率提升50倍。

立即体验

用中文搜PubMed

大模型驱动的PubMed中文搜索引擎

马上搜索

文档翻译

学术文献翻译模型,支持多种主流文档格式。

立即体验