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

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.

[1]  P. Giannos,et al.  How COVID-19 Affected the Journal Impact Factor of High Impact Medical Journals: Bibliometric Analysis , 2022, Journal of Medical Internet Research.

[2]  C. Bambra,et al.  COVID-19 mortality and deprivation: pandemic, syndemic, and endemic health inequalities , 2022, The Lancet Public Health.

[3]  J. Singh,et al.  Data sharing governance in sub-Saharan Africa during public health emergencies: Gaps and guidance , 2022, South African Journal of Science.

[4]  A. Booth,et al.  The Pandora’s Box of Evidence Synthesis and the case for a living Evidence Synthesis Taxonomy , 2022, BMJ Evidence-Based Medicine.

[5]  A. Tricco,et al.  Recommendations for the extraction, analysis, and presentation of results in scoping reviews. , 2022, JBI evidence synthesis.

[6]  C. Ardern,et al.  Evaluating prospective study registration and result reporting of trials conducted in Canada from 2009-2019 , 2022, medRxiv.

[7]  E. B. Moraes,et al.  The role of scoping reviews in reducing research waste. , 2022, Journal of clinical epidemiology.

[8]  Annie A Butler,et al.  Quality Output Checklist and Content Assessment (QuOCCA): a new tool for assessing research quality and reproducibility , 2022, BMJ Open.

[9]  D. D. de Lange,et al.  Consent is a confounding factor in a prospective observational study of critically ill elderly patients , 2022, medRxiv.

[10]  E. Topol.  It’s not too late , 2022, Science.

[11]  Clare S Watson.  Rise of the preprint: how rapid data sharing during COVID-19 has changed science forever , 2022, Nature Medicine.

[12]  E. Akl,et al.  Challenges of evidence synthesis during the 2020 COVID pandemic: a scoping review , 2021, Journal of Clinical Epidemiology.

[13]  Jorie M. Butler,et al.  Evaluating the Balance Between Privacy and Access in Digital Information Sharing , 2021, Critical care medicine.

[14]  S. Sarbadhikari,et al.  Regulatory Frameworks for Clinical Trial Data Sharing: Scoping Review , 2021, Journal of medical Internet research.

[15]  G. Úrrutia,et al.  The PRISMA 2020 statement: an updated guideline for reporting systematic reviews. , 2021, Revista espanola de cardiologia.

[16]  A. Rebai,et al.  A year of genomic surveillance reveals how the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic unfolded in Africa , 2021, medRxiv.

[17]  A. Iwasaki,et al.  The first 12 months of COVID-19: a timeline of immunological insights , 2021, Nature reviews. Immunology.

[18]  Y. Arabi,et al.  COVID-19 research in critical care: the good, the bad, and the ugly , 2021, Intensive Care Medicine.

[19]  I. Sim,et al.  COVID-19 trials: declarations of data sharing intentions at trial registration and at publication , 2021, Trials.

[20]  I. Elgendy,et al.  A systematic bias assessment of top-cited full-length original clinical investigations related to COVID-19 , 2021, European Journal of Internal Medicine.

[21]  M. Abufaraj,et al.  Obstacles and Considerations Related to Clinical Trial Research During the COVID-19 Pandemic , 2020, Frontiers in Medicine.

[22]  Greg Fegan,et al.  Solutions to COVID-19 data sharing , 2020, The Lancet Digital Health.

[23]  Z. Shu,et al.  Management and Data Sharing of COVID-19 Pandemic Information. , 2020, Biopreservation and biobanking.

[24]  E. Mayo-Wilson,et al.  The PRISMA 2020 statement: an updated guideline for reporting systematic reviews , 2020, BMJ.

[25]  Paulo Bandiera-Paiva,et al.  Strengthen Electronic Health Records System (EHR-S) Access-Control to Cope with GDPR Explicit Consent , 2020, Journal of Medical Systems.

[26]  Cooper A. Smout,et al.  Open science saves lives: lessons from the COVID-19 pandemic , 2020, bioRxiv.

[27]  K. Tuttle.  Impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on clinical research , 2020, Nature Reviews Nephrology.

[28]  A. Thorogood,et al.  COVID-19 Research: Navigating the European General Data Protection Regulation , 2020, Journal of medical Internet research.

[29]  R. Landewé,et al.  Historically controlled comparison of glucocorticoids with or without tocilizumab versus supportive care only in patients with COVID-19-associated cytokine storm syndrome: results of the CHIC study , 2020, Annals of the Rheumatic Diseases.

[30]  Natalie Harrower,et al.  RDA COVID-19 Working Group. Recommendations and Guidelines on data sharing. : Final release , 2020 .

[31]  C. Dobler.  Poor quality research and clinical practice during COVID-19 , 2020, Breathe.

[32]  Amit N. Patel,et al.  RETRACTED: Hydroxychloroquine or chloroquine with or without a macrolide for treatment of COVID-19: a multinational registry analysis , 2020, The Lancet.

[33]  Michael R Hamblin,et al.  The urgent need for integrated science to fight COVID-19 pandemic and beyond , 2020, Journal of Translational Medicine.

[34]  Jian-yuan Tang,et al.  Challenges and strategies to research ethics in conducting COVID‐19 research , 2020, Journal of evidence-based medicine.

[35]  Leo Anthony Celi,et al.  Data sharing in the era of COVID-19 , 2020, The Lancet Digital Health.

[36]  A. Bhatt.  Clinical trials during the COVID-19 pandemic: Challenges of putting scientific and ethical principles into practice , 2020, Perspectives in clinical research.

[37]  Richard D Riley,et al.  Prediction models for diagnosis and prognosis of covid-19: systematic review and critical appraisal , 2020, BMJ.

[38]  Ari Ercole,et al.  Guidelines for Data Acquisition, Quality and Curation for Observational Research Designs (DAQCORD) , 2020, Journal of Clinical and Translational Science.

[39]  Tsuyoshi Miyakawa,et al.  No raw data, no science: another possible source of the reproducibility crisis , 2020, Molecular Brain.

[40]  Elbager Sahar.  Calling all coronavirus researchers: keep sharing, stay open , 2020, Nature.

[41]  A. Sibai,et al.  Ethics Reporting Practices in Aging Research From the Arab Region , 2019, Journal of applied gerontology : the official journal of the Southern Gerontological Society.

[42]  Ruben Vicente-Saez,et al.  Open Science now: A systematic literature review for an integrated definition , 2018, Journal of Business Research.

[43]  J. Murphy.  The General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) , 2018, Irish medical journal.

[44]  Rieke van der Graaf,et al.  International Ethical Guidelines for Health-related Research involving Humans , 2017 .

[45]  John P. A. Ioannidis,et al.  A manifesto for reproducible science , 2017, Nature Human Behaviour.

[46]  K. Mahtani.  All health researchers should begin their training by preparing at least one systematic review , 2016, Journal of the Royal Society of Medicine.

[47]  Erik Schultes,et al.  The FAIR Guiding Principles for scientific data management and stewardship , 2016, Scientific Data.

[48]  Lynda L. McGhie,et al.  Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (HIPAA) , 2011, Encyclopedia of Information Assurance.

[49]  G. Collins,et al.  Effect of Ebola Progression in Liberia , 2015, Annals of Internal Medicine.

[50]  Douglas G. Altman,et al.  Transparent Reporting of a Multivariable Prediction Model for Individual Prognosis or Diagnosis (TRIPOD) , 2015, Circulation.

[51]  Marco Pautasso,et al.  Ten Simple Rules for Writing a Literature Review , 2013, PLoS Comput. Biol..

[52]  K. Jacobsen.  Reporting of ethics-related methods in epidemiological research , 2009, Journal of Medical Ethics.

[53]  K. Finlay,et al.  Failure to report and provide commentary on research ethics board approval and informed consent in medical journals , 2008, Journal of Medical Ethics.

[54]  Trish Groves,et al.  Enhancing the quality and transparency of health research , 2008, BMJ : British Medical Journal.

[55]  S. Pocock,et al.  The Strengthening the Reporting of Observational Studies in Epidemiology (STROBE) statement: guidelines for reporting observational studies. , 2007, Preventive medicine.

[56]  G. Crow,et al.  Research Ethics and Data Quality: The Implications of Informed Consent , 2006 .

[57]  J. Cassell,et al.  Why we should not seek individual informed consent for participation in health services research , 2002, Journal of medical ethics.

[58]  J. Siwek,et al.  How to write an evidence-based clinical review article. , 2002, American family physician.

[59]  M. Martínez-González,et al.  Methodological quality and reporting of ethical requirements in clinical trials , 2001, Journal of medical ethics.

[60]  Wolzt,et al.  World Medical Association Declaration of Helsinki: ethical principles for medical research involving human subjects. , 2003, The Journal of the American College of Dentists.

[61]  T. Flegel.  The importance of informed consent in medical research. , 2000, QRC advisor.

[62]  D G Altman,et al.  The scandal of poor medical research , 1994, BMJ.

[63]  G. Collins,et al.  PROBAST: A Tool to Assess the Risk of Bias and Applicability of Prediction Model Studies , 2019, Annals of Internal Medicine.

[64]  C. Grady,et al.  Enduring and emerging challenges of informed consent. , 2015, The New England journal of medicine.

[65]  T. Ichida,et al.  World Medical Association declaration of Helsinki , 2008, Gastroenterologia Japonica.