ABSTRACT
There have been reports of poor-quality research during the COVID-19 pandemic. This registered report assessed design characteristics of registered clinical trials for COVID-19 compared to non-COVID-19 trials to empirically explore the design of clinical research during a pandemic and how it compares to research conducted in non-pandemic times. We did a retrospective cohort study with a 1 : 1 ratio of interventional COVID-19 registrations to non-COVID-19 registrations, with four trial design outcomes: use of control arm, randomization, blinding and prospective registration. Logistic regression was used to estimate the odds ratio of investigating COVID-19 versus not COVID-19 and estimate direct and total effects of investigating COVID-19 for each outcome. The primary analysis showed a positive direct and total effect of COVID-19 on the use of control arms and randomization. It showed a negative direct effect of COVID-19 on blinding but no evidence of a total effect. There was no evidence of an effect on prospective registration. Taken together with secondary and sensitivity analyses, our findings are inconclusive but point towards a higher prevalence of key design characteristics in COVID-19 trials versus controls. The findings do not support much existing COVID-19 research quality literature, which generally suggests that COVID-19 led to a reduction in quality. Limitations included some data quality issues, minor deviations from the pre-registered plan and the fact that trial registrations were analysed which may not accurately reflect study design and conduct. Following in-principle acceptance, the approved stage 1 version of this manuscript was pre-registered on the Open Science Framework at https://doi.org/10.17605/OSF.IO/5YAEB. This pre-registration was performed prior to data analysis.
ABSTRACT
Live animals and cadavers are integral to veterinary education. In the year of this survey (2008), and in at least the five preceding years, cadavers obtained by euthanasia of healthy pound dogs and ex-racing greyhounds were dissected by students, during their veterinary anatomy classes at the University of Queensland School of Veterinary Science. Students may have ethical concerns about this. An alternative approach was to use donated dog cadavers. These are owned pet dogs that have died of natural causes or have been euthanised for medical reasons, and have been donated by their owners for the purposes of veterinary education. Veterinary students at the School were surveyed in 2008, in order to determine their preferences for cadaver source. Data from 406 questionnaires were analysed. Third-year and fifth-year veterinary students were more likely than first-year students to prefer pound-dog/greyhound cadavers over donated cadavers for anatomy dissection (p ≤ 0.002). Between 32% and 45% of the students had no preference for either source of cadaver. These findings are consistent with the hypothesis that veterinary students become more accepting of the euthanasia of unwanted healthy animals for education as they progress through the veterinary programme, in contexts such as the current study. This could occur due to increased acceptance of the euthanasia of healthy animals generally, a decline in moral development, desensitisation, and/or the belief that healthy animal cadavers offer a superior learning experience.
