Smart working and tele-conferences during the lockdown caused by COVID-19 bring new editorial guidelines

Main Article Content

Antonio Mutti




At the time of writing, the COVID-19 pandemic is assuming a distinct shape as do healthcare systems around the world. Some countries resisted to the tsunami and are now re-opening their industrial and commercial activities while re-organizing to face a possible new wave. Others are still struggling not to be overwhelmed by the most significant public health challenge of the last century. In Italy, after a strict lockdown, almost all activities are re-opening, trying to navigate between Scylla (epidemics and its economic consequences) and Cariddi (economic recession and its adverse health effects) bearing in mind that there is collinearity between the circulation of money and spreading of the virus and that there is a serious risk of a vicious spiral which could affect the society. The prolonged lockdown deemed to prevent the spreading of the virus also reduced the circulation of money, and hence tax revenues, thus it will ultimately result in fewer finances available for social security and Public Health (3). The main political issue will then be the definition of a right point of equilibrium between risks and benefits, between action and precaution. As scientists, we are called to distinguish between what we know and what is unknown, between data and opinions, between facts and beliefs. [...]


Download data is not yet available.
Abstract 290 | PDF Downloads 138


1. Cohen JF, Korevaar DA, Altman DG, et al: STARD 2015 guidelines for reporting diagnostic accuracy studies: explanation and elaboration. BMJ Open 2016; 6: e012799. doi: 10.1136/bmjopen-2016-012799.
2. Cuschieri S: The STROBE guidelines. Saudi J Anaesth. 2019; 13 (Suppl 1): S31-S34. doi:10.4103/sja.SJA_543_18
3. McKee M, Stuckler D: If the world fails to protect the economy, COVID-19 will damage health not just now but also in the future. Nat Med 2020; 26:640–642.
4. Mallapaty S: Popular preprint servers face closure because of money troubles. Nature 2020; 578: 349. doi:10.1038/d41586-020-00363-3
5. Shamseer L, Moher D, Clarke M, et al: Preferred reporting items for systematic review and meta-analysis protocols (PRISMA-P) 2015: elaboration and explanation. BMJ 2015; 350: g7647. doi: 10.1136/bmj.g7647. Erratum in: BMJ. 2016; 354: i4086.
6. Società Italiana di Medicina del Lavoro. Esami di laboratorio per SARS-CoV-2 nella gestione in ambito occupazionale della pandemia COVID 19. Posizione della Società Italiana di Medicina del Lavoro. Med. Lav 2020; 111: 151-154.
7. Stroup DF, Berlin JA, Morton SC, et al: Meta-analysis of observational studies in epidemiology: a proposal for reporting. Meta-analysis Of Observational Studies in Epidemiology (MOOSE) group. JAMA. 2000; 283: 2008-12. doi: 10.1001/jama.283.15.2008.