Probably in the history of medicine, doctors were not as united as they are today, in that fight against COVID-19, when the pandemic spread incredibly fast - from East to West, from North to South. The COVID-19 pandemic is likely to have unprecedented and unforeseeable consequences, from those on a worldwide/global level to those at the local level - at the level of local communities and families, and individuals (and not just humans, but all other living beings), of which the future will testify in various ways. The consequences will be political, economic, social, but probably to the greatest degree, the consequences of a health nature - systemic and individual. The death toll is high, despite the therapy being applied. We do not currently have a specific and effective therapy against COVID-19. In addition, we do not have a single clinical study that would support prophylactic therapy that could affect COVID-19. All of the therapeutic options now available to us are based on the experience we have gained in treating SARS and MERS. When the vaccine is discovered, at that moment we will be able to say that we have an appropriate and effective method in fighting against COVID-19. Some historians of medicine believe that voluntary vaccination against COVID-19 would be, not only less politically risky but also more effective in protecting the population from coronavirus. It remains to be seen what the new wave of the COVID-19 pandemic, announced by WHO experts these days, and which is expected in the fall of 2020, will bring us.

Introduction: Results of preclinical and clinical studies in medicine could be trusted only if their design and statistical analysis were appropriate. Aim: The aim of our study was to investigate whether preclinical and clinical studies published in medical journals of Bosnia and Herzegovina satisfy basic requirements for appropriate design and statistical interpretation of data. Methods: Preclinical and clinical studies published in medical journals of Bosnia and Herzegovina were retrieved from the PubMed database, and the sample for analysis was randomly chosen from the retrieved publications. Implementation rate of basic principles of experimental design (local control, randomization and replication) and rate of the most common errors in design of clinical/observational studies was established by careful reading of the sampled publications and their checking against predefined criteria. Results: Our study showed that only a minority of experimental preclinical studies had basic principles of design completely implemented (7%), while implementation rate of single aspects of appropriate experimental design varied from as low as 12% to as high as 77%. Only one of the clinical/observational studies had none of the errors searched for (2%), and specific errors rates varied from 10% to 89%. Average impact factor of the surveyed studies was around one, and average publication date recent, less than 5 years ago. Conclusion: Prevalence of preclinical studies that did not follow completely basic principles of research design, and that of clinical/observational studies with errors are high, raising suspicion to validity of their results. If incorrect and not protected against bias, results of published studies may adversely influence future research.

Introduction: COVID-19 is the disease caused by an infection of the SARS-CoV-2 virus, first identified in the city of Wuhan, in China’s Hubei province in December 2019. COVID-19 was previously known as 2019 Novel Coronavirus (2019-nCoV) respiratory disease before the World Health Organization (WHO) declared the official name as COVID-19 in February 2020. Aim: The aim of this study is to search scientific literature in the biomedicine and analyzed current results of investigations regarding morbidity and mortality rates as consequences of COVID-19 infection of Cardiovascular diseases (CVD), and other most common chronic diseases which are on the top mortality and morbidity rates in almost all countries in the world. Also, to propose most useful measures how to prevent patients to keep themselves against COVID-19 infection. Methods: We used method of descriptive analysis of the published papers with described studies about Corona virus connected with CVD, and, also, Guidelines proposed by World Health Organization (WHO) and European Society of Cardiology (ESC), and some other international associations which are included in global fighting against COVID-19 infection. Results: After searching current scientific literature we have acknowledged that not any Evidence Based Medicine (EBM) study in the world during last 5 months from the time when first cases of COVID-10 infection was detected. Also, there is no unique proposed ways of treatments and drugs to protect patients, especially people over 65 years old, who are very risk group to be affected with COVID-19. Expectations that vaccine against COVID-19 will be produced optimal during at least 10 months to 2 years, and in all current Guidelines most important proposed preventive measures are the same like which one described in Strategic documents of WHO, in statements of Declaration of Primary Health Care in Alma Ata in 1978. Conclusion: WHO proposed preventive measures can be helpful to everybody. Physicians who work at every level of Health Care Systems, but especially at primary health care level, must follow those recommendations and teach their patients about it. But, the fact is that current focus of COVID-19 epidemic has targeted on protection of physical health of population in global, however, the influence on mental health which will be one of the important consequences of COVID-19 pandemic in the future, and which could be declared as «Post-coronavirus Stress Syndrome„ (PCSS) could be bigger challenge for Global Public Health.

Committee of Publishing Ethics (COPE) announced great problem with retraction of the papers published in journals which are cited in Web of Science data base, before and after retractions from the journals were papers published, because of unethical behaviours of the authors - https://retractionwatch.com/the-retraction-watch-leaderboard/top-10-most-highly-cited-retracted-papers/ (1).