Skip to main content

Table 2 Summary of statements regarding consent and compliance with ethical guidelines

From: Adherence with reporting of ethical standards in COVID-19 human studies: a rapid review

 

Case study n = (%)

Case series n = (%)

Observational study n = (%)

CTIMPs n = (%)

Studies/trials (non-CTIMPs) n = (%)

April search n = 68

Nov search n = 71

April search n = 120

Nov search n = 240

April search n = 55

Nov search n = 385

April search n = 2

Nov search n = 3

April search n = 0

Nov search n = 18

No consent specified in article

48 (70.6%)*

27 (38%)*

86 (71.7%)

179 (75%)

23 (92%)

139 (36%)

2 (50%)

0 (0%)

-

2 (11%)

Written consent

11 (16.2%)

14 (20%)

17 (14.2%)

32 (13%)

14 (25.5%)

80 (21%)

2 (50%)

3 (100%)

8 (45%)

Article does not specify if verbal or written

6 (8.8%)

17 (24%)

10 (8.3%)

17 (7%)

3 (5.5%)

41 (11%)

0 (0%)

0 (0%)

6 (33%)

Verbal consent

2 (2.9%)

1 (1%)

2 (1.6%)

7 (3%)

2 (3.6%)

32 (8%)

0 (0%)

0 (0%)

2 (11%)

Electronic

0 (0%)

0 (0%)

0 (0%)

2 (0.8%)

3 (5.5%)

57 (15%)

0 (0%)

0 (0%)

0 (0%)

Not applicable—RIP

1 (1.5%)

11 (16%)

4 (3.3%)

3 (1.2%)

0 (0%)

0 (0%)

N/A

0 (0%)

0 (0%)

Assent

0 (0%)

1 (1%)

1 (0.8%)

0 (0%)

0 (0%)

0 (0%)

0 (0%)

0 (0%)

0 (0%)

Consent implied (completion of a survey)

0 (0%)

36 (9%)

Consent waived

3 (4.4%)

0 (0%)

25 (20.8%)

67 (28%)

10 (18.2%)

0 (0%)

Waived by Unknown

2 (2.9%)

0 (0%)

1 (0.8%)

9 (13%)

2 (3.6%)

Waived by REC

1 (1.5%)

0 (0%)

24 (20%)

54 (81%)

0 (0%)

Waived by other (local committee or law)

0 (0%)

0 (0%)

0 (0%)

4 (6%)

2 (3.6%)

0 (0%)

0 (0%)

0 (0%)

0 (0%)

Wording of consent, if provided

n = 11

n = 31

n = 17

n = 57

n = 14

n = 234

n = 2

n = 3

n = 0

n = 16

‘Written Informed Consent’/Strict definition ***

5 (45.5%)

13 (42%)

13 (76.5%)**

28 (49%)**

6 (43%)

123 (53%)

2 (50%)

3 (100%)

5 (31%)

Journal editor has copy of written consent form

0 (0%)

6 (8.5%)

0 (0%)

0 (0%)

  1. CTIMP Clinical Trial of Investigational Medicinal Products, RIP participants(s) had died; REC Research Ethics Committee, Nov November
  2. *p < 0.01; **p < 0.05 [chi-squared test]; *** ‘Strict definition’ of consent, as described by Yank and Rennie[22]