首页> 外文期刊>Developing world bioethics >Comparison of COVID‐19 studies registered in the clinical trial platforms: A research ethics analysis perspective
【24h】

Comparison of COVID‐19 studies registered in the clinical trial platforms: A research ethics analysis perspective

机译:临床试验平台中注册的 COVID-19 研究的比较:研究伦理分析视角

获取原文
获取原文并翻译 | 示例
获取外文期刊封面目录资料

摘要

Abstract Background The coronavirus disease (COVID‐19) treatment must be based on scientific methods such as clinical trials. Trials involving human subjects and those requiring a risk‐benefit analysis may occasionally face challenges owing to the time limitations in the pandemic. Methodology This study analyses the WHO's International Clinical Trials Registry Platform and clinicaltrials.gov, where most COVID‐19 clinical trials are registered, according to ethical criteria including study design, conflicts of interest, enrollment of healthcare workers, study locations, site‐, design‐, and participant‐related issues. The discussion is based on three aspects: the quality of the information to be produced, the relevance to significant health problems, and the creation or evaluation of interventions, policies, or practices that promote individual or public health. Results There were significant differences between the two platforms regarding the investigational medicinal product (IMP), the comparator, ethics committee/institutional review board approval, plan to share individual participant data, study phase, site, IMP, and design‐related issues. Conflict of interest, sponsor information, and management of vulnerable groups were the main areas wherein both platforms lacked sufficient information. Conclusion With this analysis, we aimed to define a minimum set of ethical criteria for clinical trial platforms to obtain standardization between these two platforms.
机译:摘要 背景 冠状病毒病(COVID-19)的治疗必须基于临床试验等科学方法。由于大流行的时间限制,涉及人类受试者和需要风险收益分析的受试者的试验可能偶尔会面临挑战。方法 本研究根据伦理标准分析了 WHO 的国际临床试验注册平台和 clinicaltrials.gov,大多数 COVID-19 临床试验都是在该平台注册的,这些标准包括研究设计、利益冲突、医护人员的招募、研究地点、地点、设计和参与者相关问题。讨论基于三个方面:将要产生的信息的质量、与重大健康问题的相关性以及促进个人或公共卫生的干预措施、政策或做法的制定或评估。结果 两个平台在研究药物(IMP)、对照、伦理委员会/机构审查委员会批准、共享个体受试者数据的计划、研究阶段、研究中心、IMP和设计相关问题方面存在显著差异。利益冲突、赞助商信息和弱势群体管理是两个平台缺乏足够信息的主要领域。结论 通过这一分析,我们旨在为临床试验平台定义一套最低限度的伦理标准,以实现这两个平台之间的标准化。

著录项

获取原文

客服邮箱:kefu@zhangqiaokeyan.com

京公网安备:11010802029741号 ICP备案号:京ICP备15016152号-6 六维联合信息科技 (北京) 有限公司©版权所有
  • 客服微信

  • 服务号