research problem on covid 19

An official website of the United States government

Official websites use .gov A .gov website belongs to an official government organization in the United States.

Secure .gov websites use HTTPS A lock ( Lock Locked padlock icon ) or https:// means you've safely connected to the .gov website. Share sensitive information only on official, secure websites.

Publications
Account settings
Advanced Search
Journal List

The impact of COVID-19 on research

Gma beckers, aj nieuwhof-leppink, magdalena fossum.

Author information
Article notes
Copyright and License information

Correspondence to: L. Harper, Department of Pediatric Surgery, Hopital Pellegrin-Enfants, Place Amelie Raba-Leon, 33076, Bordeaux, France. Tel: +33 5 56 79 56 17.

Received 2020 Jul 1; Accepted 2020 Jul 1; Issue date 2020 Oct.

Keywords: Covid-19, Research, Pandemic, Pediatric urology

Since January 2020 Elsevier has created a COVID-19 resource centre with free information in English and Mandarin on the novel coronavirus COVID-19. The COVID-19 resource centre is hosted on Elsevier Connect, the company's public news and information website. Elsevier hereby grants permission to make all its COVID-19-related research that is available on the COVID-19 resource centre - including this research content - immediately available in PubMed Central and other publicly funded repositories, such as the WHO COVID database with rights for unrestricted research re-use and analyses in any form or by any means with acknowledgement of the original source. These permissions are granted for free by Elsevier for as long as the COVID-19 resource centre remains active.

Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) has swept across the globe causing hundreds of thousands of deaths, shutting down economies, closing borders and wreaking havoc on an unprecedented scale. It has strained healthcare services and personnel to the brink in many regions and will certainly deeply mark medical research both in the short and long-term.

Prior to the COVID pandemic, virology research (including influenza) represented less than 2% of all biomedical research. However, the number of laboratories and investigators that have pivoted to address COVID related research questions is astonishing, likely comprising 10–20% of current biomedical investigation, showing the incredible adaptability of the research community [ 1 ]. The multinational support rapidly infused for COVID-19 research is in the billions of euros [ 2 ]. The sharing of research findings and research data has never been as rapid and efficient [ 3 ]. The crisis has also brought disease, health, and healthcare back to the forefront of societal issues, and will have a lasting impact on public spending. However, with all this optimism and focus, there is a downside.

To begin, the COVID-19 crisis has led to a massive influx of publications. Not only are specialty journals being flooded with submissions by authors being unwittingly granted much needed writing time, but publications on COVID have literally inundated us. More than 20,000 papers have been published since December 2019, many in prestigious journals. There are also an increasing number of studies being uploaded to preprint servers, such as BioRxiv, for rapid dissemination prior to any peer review. However, we cannot assume that the time and quality available for peer review is able to keep pace with the explosion of publication. There is need for increased caution in the wake of this massive influx of submissions, especially since we are increasingly seeing these results being picked up by the media and diffused to a less attuned audience. In recent weeks, several prestigious journals, including the Lancet and the New England Journal of Medicine, have published retractions of earlier and potentially major COVID-related findings [ 4 , 5 ]. On June 15, 2020, The New York Times highlighted potential lapses in the peer review process affecting major scientific journals [ 6 ].

We must strive to improve scientific quality always. The current debate over the use of hydroxychloroquine further illustrates the undermining of the scientific process when faced with global desperation for ready-made truths and solutions [ 4 , 7 , 8 ]. Science needs time, and good science needs a lot of it for data to grow and knowledge to evolve, but this process is ill-prepared to handle the rush for solutions to the COVID crises.

Moreover, just as COVID-19 has shown social, racial, and economic health disparities, the pandemic seems also to have accentuated existing gender inequalities within the field of research [ 9 ]. Indeed, early analyses suggest that female academics are publishing less and starting fewer research projects than their male peers. This might be an effect of the lockdown and the fact that more women than are men are juggling caring for families and children despite both “working” from home [ 10 , 11 ].

Travel, social, and funding restrictions will also take a serious toll on scientific research worldwide. Research staff and resources have been purposely and purposefully prioritized to COVID-19 activities above all else. Distancing and transmission issues have caused most non-COVID clinical research to be suspended, causing a reduction in recruitment of research subjects and a delay in data entry into clinical trial databases [ 12 ]. Research-related hiring has been suspended because of travel restrictions and young researchers might soon find themselves out of a job if their subject is not the pandemic. Indeed, though government-funded medical research bodies worldwide say they are committed to maintaining the continuity and breadth of biomedical research, how the economic downfall will influence government spending remains to be seen. Furthermore, research funding that relies on public fundraising is expected to drop substantially and many researchers will see a significant decrease in funding opportunities [ 13 ]. The global impact the crisis will have on the economy makes it hard to imagine that future research funding will not be substantially affected.

During this crisis, many resources were understandably redirected toward preparing for and caring for COVID-19 patients, but the collateral damage to so many patients with non-COVID-19 medical conditions that did not receive, or failed to seek, treatment will surely emerge [ 14 ]. Finally, children have also paid a high price for the redirecting of medical resources, with delays in their medical and surgical management, as well as vaccinations [ 15 , 16 ]. This may be especially problematic when many aspects of pediatric care is based on their developmental clock, which even the pandemic cannot stop. Whether this was the best option will certainly be analyzed in retrospect. Congenital anomalies alone account for over 400,000 deaths worldwide every year, and inflict a considerable burden both on children, families, and healthcare systems [ 17 ]. Thus, it is essential that funding for medical research does not follow the same pattern with a disproportionate decrease in funding for non-COVID research including pediatric and developmental urology.

COVID-19 has already changed the world, not only because of the disease itself, but because of the long-term effects of the world's reaction to the pandemic. While the pandemic may have brought with it some silver linings, it is crucial that the scientific community conduct current and future research broadly and openly, lest future pandemic preparedness in research repeat the hard-fought lessons of today.

1. NIH . February 2020. Estimates of funding for various research, condition, and disease categories (RCDC) https://report.nih.gov/categorical_spending.aspx [ Google Scholar ]
2. European Commission. Press release. May 2020.
3. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/research/coronavirus/
4. Mehra M.R., Desai S.S., Ruschitzka F., Patel A.N. Hydroxychloroquine or chloroquine with or without a macrolide for treatment of COVID-19: a multinational registry analysis. Lancet. 2020;S0140–6736(20):31180–31186. doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(20)31180-6. [published online ahead of print, 2020 May 22] [published correction appears in Lancet. 2020 May 30;:] [ DOI ] [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ] [ Retracted ]
5. Mehra M.R., Desai S.S., Kuy S., Henry T.D., Patel A.N. Retraction: cardiovascular disease, drug therapy, and mortality in covid-19. N Engl J Med. 2020;382(26):2582. doi: 10.1056/NEJMoa2007621. [retraction of: N Engl J Med. 2020 Jun 18;382(25):e102] [ DOI ] [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ] [ Retracted ]
6. The pandemic claims new victims: prestigious medical journals. New York Times, June 2020.
7. Yazdany J., Kim A.H.J. Use of hydroxychloroquine and chloroquine during the COVID-19 pandemic: what every clinician should know. Ann Intern Med. 2020;172(11):754–755. doi: 10.7326/M20-1334. [ DOI ] [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
8. Statement from the chief investigators of the randomised evaluation of COVid-19 thERapY (RECOVERY) trial on hydroxychloroquine, 5 June 2020.
9. Dorn A.V., Cooney R.E., Sabin M.L. COVID-19 exacerbating inequalities in the US. Lancet. 2020;395(10232):1243–1244. doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(20)30893-X. [ DOI ] [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
10. Vincent-Lamarre P., Sugimoto C.R., Larivière V. The decline of women’s research production during the coronavirus pandemic. Nature Index. 19 May 2020 https://www.natureindex.com/news-blog/decline-women-scientist-research-publishing-production-coronavirus-pandemic [ Google Scholar ]
11. https://www.theguardian.com/education/2020/may/12/womens-research-plummets-during-lockdown-but-articles-from-men-increase
12. Upadhaya S., Yu J.X., Oliva C., Hoton M., Hodge J., Hubbard-Lucey V.M. Impact of COVID-19 on oncology clinical trials. Nat Rev Drug Discov. 2020;19:376–377. doi: 10.1038/d41573-020-00093-1. [ DOI ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
13. Webster P. How is biomedical research funding faring during the COVID-19 lockdown? Nat Med. April 2020 doi: 10.1038/d41591-020-00010-4. [published online ahead of print, 2020 Apr 16] [ DOI ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
14. Rosenbaum L. The untold toll - the pandemic's effects on patients without covid-19. N Engl J Med. 2020 doi: 10.1056/NEJMms2009984. [ DOI ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
15. Stephenson J. Sharp drop in routine vaccinations for US children amid COVID-19 pandemic. JAMA Health Forum. 2020;1(5) doi: 10.1001/jamahealthforum.2020.0608. [ DOI ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
16. United Nations policy brief . 16th April, 2020. The impact of Covid-19 on children. [ Google Scholar ]
17. Boyle B., Addor M.C., Arriola L., Barisic I., Bianchi F., Csaki-Szunyogh M. Estimating Global Burden of Disease due to congenital anomaly: an analysis of European data. Arch Dis Child Fetal Neonatal Ed. 2018;103(1):F22–F28. doi: 10.1136/archdischild-2016-311845. [ DOI ] [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
View on publisher site
PDF (262.3 KB)
Collections

Add to Collections

An official website of the United States government

Official websites use .gov A .gov website belongs to an official government organization in the United States.

Secure .gov websites use HTTPS A lock ( Lock Locked padlock icon ) or https:// means you've safely connected to the .gov website. Share sensitive information only on official, secure websites.

Publications
Account settings
Advanced Search
Journal List

The impact of the COVID-19 on research

Najla f alsiri, meshal a alhadhoud, shea palmer.

Author information
Article notes
Copyright and License information

Corresponding author. Al-Razi Orthopedics and Rehabilitation Hospital, Shuwaikh, Kuwait. Tel.: +965-66820032.

Issue date 2021 Jan.

Letter to the editor

The World Health Organization declared the coronavirus disease of 2019 (COVID-19) as a pandemic. Extreme control measures have been applied globally. Borders between countries have been closed, and quarantining and physical distancing have been practiced. These control measures come at a socioeconomic cost and certainly come at the expense of scientific research. Clinical research often involves human to human interaction; however, such interaction has become hazardous due to the highly contagious nature of COVID-19. The extreme control measures applied globally are relatively novel and form the main challenges to ongoing research. Continuation of research studies that were in process during the prepandemic phase is challenging. Researchers have taken one of two routes: a temporary pause or continuation during the pandemic. The Clinical Research Network Coordinating Center reported that 54% of commercial studies and 12% of noncommercial studies had continued as planned [ 1 ]. We wish to highlight potential issues with continuing clinical research throughout the pandemic.

In clinical research, practicing control over the independent variable ensures that any resultant effect on the dependent variable is related to the intervention [ 2 ]. Control in research increases the internal validity [ 2 ]; however, demonstrating control during the COVID-19 pandemic is challenging. Researchers may have lost control over fundamental resources, such as physical access to experimental settings, human resources, assessment clinic appointments, and intervention clinic appointments. The COVID-19 pandemic may have a significant impact on the study’s physical setting through either a research location change or an un-changed location but with the application of infection control measures. Such loss of control during the COVID-19 pandemic could risk the internal and external validity of the studies [ 3 ].

The findings of any research study could represent a true result or could be due to chance or bias introduced by other factors [ 4 ]. Sampling bias is a major threat to research validity during the COVID-19 pandemic. Many health services are opened only for emergency services, meaning that only those who are in severe pain or with a recent injury may be accessible to researchers. This would result in studies with a sample that is less representative of the target population, risking the generalizability of the research. Additionally, the threats the pandemic present to people’s health has led to psychological distress, depression, and anxiety [ 5 , 6 ]. The performance of research volunteers who are psychologically vulnerable may be different from those who are more robust [ 7 , 8 ]. Women, individuals 18 to 30 years old and above 60 years old, people with higher education, and migrant workers have been reported to have the highest distress levels during the COVID-19 pandemic [ 5 ]. Therefore, these cohorts may be less likely to volunteer in research, and if they volunteer, their performance may be affected by their psychological well being. Such factors might risk the study’s generalizability as the cohort recruited during the pandemic might not be representative of the target population.

The infection control measures practiced during the COVID-19 pandemic have placed ongoing research under the threat of systematic bias. Systematic bias is the tendency to under/overestimate effects due to error in the study design or execution, unlike random bias, which is related to chance and is a feature of all research [ 9 ]. Systematic bias can result from a range of factors and leads to incorrect estimations or associations such as selection, confounding, and information bias [ 3 ]. Commonly systematic bias is minimized by employing a range of techniques to address confounding variables. However, confounding variables during a pandemic are more complex. For example, examining some of the research volunteers in a nonpandemic environment and others in a pandemic environment for the same study could risk the consistency of procedures, exposing the research to unstable variables. Recognizing the potential effect of pandemics as a source of bias is important to allow a balanced interpretation of the results. The COVID-19 pandemic is a potential source of unintentional bias, and researchers should be careful not to overgeneralize the results and inspect the data for type I/II errors [ 10 ].

It is the researchers’ responsibility to maintain the safety of their volunteers and research staff. Predictable risk should be balanced with the expected benefits of the research to decide whether to continue or pause the study. Researchers are expected to deal with the impact by applying the required decisions to minimize the risk to participants and to research validity. It is recommended to practice transparency in reporting to aid interpretation of the findings, including the ability to generalize the findings. The COVID-19 crisis has slowed the wheel of science, and if not carefully controlled, it might also risk research internal validity and generalizability.

Conflict of interest: The authors declare no conflict of interest.

Supplementary data

1. NIHR 2020. https://www.nihr.ac.uk/documents/qanda-on-the-impact-of-covid-19-on-research-funded-or-supported-by-nihr/24467 Available at.
2. Bowling A. 3rd ed. The McGraw-Hill Companies; England: 2009. Research methods in health: investigating health and health services. [ Google Scholar ]
3. Sica G. Bias in research studies. Radiology. 2006;238:780–789. doi: 10.1148/radiol.2383041109. [ DOI ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
4. Hanley J. The place of statistical methods in radiology (and in the bigger picture) Invest Radiol. 1989;24:10–16. doi: 10.1097/00004424-198901000-00004. [ DOI ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
5. Qiu J., Shen B., Zhao M., Wang Z., Xie B., Xu Y. A nationwide survey of psychological distress among Chinese people in the COVID-19 epidemic: implications and policy recommendations. Gen Psychiatr. 2020;33(2):e100213. doi: 10.1136/gpsych-2020-100213. [ DOI ] [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
6. Wang C., Pan R., Wan X., Tan Y., Xu L., Ho C., et al. Immediate psychological responses and associated factors during the initial stage of the 2019 coronavirus disease (COVID-19) epidemic among the general population in China. Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2020;17(5):1729. doi: 10.3390/ijerph17051729. [ DOI ] [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
7. Schneider S., Moyer A., Knapp-Oliver S., Sohl S., Cannella D., Targhetta V. Pre-intervention distress moderates the efficacy of psychosocial treatment for cancer patients: a meta-analysis. J Behav Med. 2010;33:1–14. doi: 10.1007/s10865-009-9227-2. [ DOI ] [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
8. Sorel J., Veltman E., Honig A., Poolman R. The influence of preoperative psychological distress on pain and function after total knee arthroplasty: a systematic review and meta-analstysis. Bone Joint J. 2019;101-B(1):7–14. doi: 10.1302/0301-620X.101B1.BJJ-2018-0672.R1. [ DOI ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
9. Coggon D., Geoffrey R., Barker D. Epidemiology for uninitiated. 5th ed. BMJ Books; London: 2003. Measurement error and bias. [ Google Scholar ]
10. Simundic A. Bias in research. Biochem Med (Zagreb) 2013;23(1):12–15. doi: 10.11613/BM.2013.003. [ DOI ] [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]

Associated Data

This section collects any data citations, data availability statements, or supplementary materials included in this article.

Supplementary Materials

View on publisher site
PDF (171.6 KB)
Collections

Add to Collections

IMAGES

12 crucial questions about COVID-19 answered by health data research
COVID-19 research briefing
COVID-19 research: Anti-viral strategy with double effect
Simulated impacts of COVID-19 scenarios on cancer screening
COVID-19 and Fall 2020: Impacts on U.S. International Higher Education
COVID-19: the latest research & publishing opportunities

VIDEO

24. COVID-19: ID Part 1: Emerging treatments with Drs. Chida and Nematollahi
Latest research on vaccine side effects, immune reaction and thrombosis risks
Coronavirus COVID-19
IDIBAPS researcher Josep Mallolas explains his research on AIDS and HIV infection
ACE 745: Problem Statements and Research Questions (IUP)
Infodemic: Coronavirus and the fake news pandemic