PT - JOURNAL ARTICLE AU - Merle-Marie Pittelkow AU - Daniel Strech TI - Resources to Aid Ethical Review of Clinical Studies: Gaps and Opportunities AID - 10.1101/2023.12.13.23299842 DP - 2023 Jan 01 TA - medRxiv PG - 2023.12.13.23299842 4099 - http://medrxiv.org/content/early/2023/12/14/2023.12.13.23299842.short 4100 - http://medrxiv.org/content/early/2023/12/14/2023.12.13.23299842.full AB - Background Research Ethics Committees (RECs) review the ethical, legal, and methodological standard of clinical research. However, complying with all requirements and professional expectations while maintaining the necessary scientific and ethical standards can be challenging for applicants and members of the REC alike. There is a need for easily accessible and clear guidelines and resources to help medical researchers and REC members navigate the legal and ethical requirements and the process of their review.Methods We employed an explorative search for resources on the websites of relevant stakeholders including 12 national umbrella associations (six German-language and six English-language), three English-language international umbrella associations, and 16 national REC’s of major university hospitals (eight German- and eight English-language). We mapped the identified resources onto the guiding principles of ethical clinical research and 35 related checkpoints. To describe the content of the resources we conducted a thematic analysis.Results We extracted a total of 233 resources, including templates (n = 134, 58.5%), guidelines/recommendations (n = 62, 26.6%), checklists (n = 23, 9.9%), tools (n = 5, 2.2%), flowcharts (n = 5, 2.2%), glossaries (n = 3, 1.3%), and one (0.4%) software program. We extracted 101 German and 132 English resources created between 2004 and 2023. The majority (n = 204; 87.6%) could be assigned to one checkpoint. The remaining 29 (12.5%) resources were considered unspecific (e.g., a checklist which documents to be submitted for a German drug trial). The specific resources are discussed per checkpoint.Conclusion While much support is available for some aspects such as participant information and informed consent forms, it is lacking in other areas such as study design, analysis, and biometrics. More support should be provided in these areas to ensure that research projects are methodologically sound. A more detailed analysis of the quality of available resources could help identify other areas of need.Competing Interest StatementThe authors have declared no competing interest.Funding StatementThis work was conducted as part of the GUIDEME project funded by the German Federal Ministry of Education and Research (BMBF 01GP2208A). DS received the funding. The funder had no role in the study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript.Author DeclarationsI confirm all relevant ethical guidelines have been followed, and any necessary IRB and/or ethics committee approvals have been obtained.YesI confirm that all necessary patient/participant consent has been obtained and the appropriate institutional forms have been archived, and that any patient/participant/sample identifiers included were not known to anyone (e.g., hospital staff, patients or participants themselves) outside the research group so cannot be used to identify individuals.YesI understand that all clinical trials and any other prospective interventional studies must be registered with an ICMJE-approved registry, such as ClinicalTrials.gov. I confirm that any such study reported in the manuscript has been registered and the trial registration ID is provided (note: if posting a prospective study registered retrospectively, please provide a statement in the trial ID field explaining why the study was not registered in advance).YesI have followed all appropriate research reporting guidelines, such as any relevant EQUATOR Network research reporting checklist(s) and other pertinent material, if applicable.YesAll data produced are available online at https://osf.io/e7dmt/.