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.

Multireader evaluation of radiologist performance for COVID-19 detection on emergency department chest radiographs.

BACKGROUND: Chest radiographs (CXR) are frequently used as a screening tool for patients with suspected COVID-19 infection pending reverse transcriptase polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR) results, despite recommendations against this. We evaluated radiologist performance for COVID-19 diagnosis on CXR at the time of patient presentation in the Emergency Department (ED). MATERIALS AND METHODS: We extracted RT-PCR results, clinical history, and CXRs of all patients from a single institution between March and June 2020. 984 RT-PCR positive and 1043 RT-PCR negative radiographs were reviewed by 10 emergency radiologists from 4 academic centers. 100 cases were read by all radiologists and 1927 cases by 2 radiologists. Each radiologist chose the single best label per case: Normal, COVID-19, Other - Infectious, Other - Noninfectious, Non-diagnostic, and Endotracheal Tube. Cases labeled with endotracheal tube (246) or non-diagnostic (54) were excluded. Remaining cases were analyzed for label distribution, clinical history, and inter-reader agreement. RESULTS: 1727 radiographs (732 RT-PCR positive, 995 RT-PCR negative) were included from 1594 patients (51.2% male, 48.8% female, age 59 ± 19 years). For 89 cases read by all readers, there was poor agreement for RT-PCR positive (Fleiss Score 0.36) and negative (Fleiss Score 0.46) exams. Agreement between two readers on 1638 cases was 54.2% (373/688) for RT-PCR positive cases and 71.4% (679/950) for negative cases. Agreement was highest for RT-PCR negative cases labeled as Normal (50.4%, n = 479). Reader performance did not improve with clinical history or time between CXR and RT-PCR result. CONCLUSION: At the time of presentation to the emergency department, emergency radiologist performance is non-specific for diagnosing COVID-19.