Since the COVID-19 outbreak began in Wuhan, China, countries worldwide have been forced to take unprecedented measures to combat it. While some countries are still grappling with the COVID-19 pandemic, others have fared better and have re-established relative normalcy quickly. The rapid transmission rate of the virus has shown a greater need for efficient and technologically modern containment measures. The use of digital tools to facilitate strict containment measures in countries that have fared well against the COVID-19 pandemic has sparked both interest and controversy.
In this study, we compare the precautions taken against the spread of COVID-19 in the United States, Spain, and Italy, with Taiwan, South Korea, and Singapore, particularly related to the use of digital tools for contact tracing, and propose policies that could be used in the United States for future COVID-19 waves or pandemics.
COVID-19 death rate data were obtained from the European Center for Disease Prevention and Control (ECDC), accessed through the Our World in Data database, and were evaluated based on population size per 100,000 people from December 31, 2019, to September 6, 2020. All policies and measures enacted were obtained from their respective governmental websites.
We found a strong association between lower death rates per capita and countries that implemented early mask use and strict border control measures that included mandatory quarantine using digital tools. There is a significant difference in the number of deaths per 100,000 when comparing Taiwan, South Korea, and Singapore with the United States, Spain, and Italy.
Based on our research, it is evident that early intervention with the use of digital tools had a strong correlation with the successful containment of COVID-19. Infection rates and subsequent deaths in Italy, Spain, and the United States could have been much lower with early mask use and, more importantly, timely border control measures using modern digital tools. Thus, we propose that the United States execute the following national policies should a public health emergency be declared: (1) immediately establish a National Command responsible for enacting strict mandatory guidelines enforced by federal and state governments, including national mask use; (2) mandate civilian cooperation with health officials in contact tracing and quarantine orders; and (3) require incoming travelers to the United States and those quarantined to download a contact tracing app. We acknowledge the countries we studied differ in their cultures, political systems, and reporting criteria for COVID-19 deaths. Further research may need to be conducted to address these limitations; however, we believe that the proposed policies could protect the American public.

Background: Writing, designing, and conducting a clinical trial research proposal has an important role in achieving valid and reliable findings. Thus, this study aimed at critically appraising fundamental information in approved clinical trial research proposals in Mashhad University of Medical Sciences (MUMS) from 2008 to 2014. Methods: This cross-sectional study was conducted on all 935 approved clinical trial research proposals in MUMS from 2008 to 2014. A valid and reliable as well as comprehensive, simple, and usable checklist in sessions with biostatisticians and methodologists, consisting of 11 main items as research tool, were used. Agreement rate between the reviewers of the proposals, who were responsible for data collection, was assessed during 3 sessions, and Kappa statistics was calculated at the last session as 97%. Results: More than 60% of the research proposals had a methodologist consultant, moreover, type of study or study design had been specified in almost all of them (98%). Appropriateness of study aims with hypotheses was not observed in a significant number of research proposals (585 proposals, 62.6%). The required sample size for 66.8% of the approved proposals was based on a sample size formula; however, in 25% of the proposals, sample size formula was not in accordance with the study design. Data collection tool was not selected appropriately in 55.2% of the approved research proposals. Type and method of randomization were unknown in 21% of the proposals and dealing with missing data had not been described in most of them (98%). Inclusion and exclusion criteria were (92%) fully and adequately explained. Moreover, 44% and 31% of the research proposals were moderate and weak in rank, respectively, with respect to the correctness of the statistical analysis methods. Conclusion: Findings of the present study revealed that a large portion of the approved proposals were highly biased or ambiguous with respect to randomization, blinding, dealing with missing data, data collection tool, sampling methods, and statistical analysis. Thus, it is essential to consult and collaborate with a methodologist in all parts of a proposal to control the possible and specific biases in clinical trials.