Cargando…
Inadequate reporting of research ethics review and informed consent in cluster randomised trials: review of random sample of published trials
Objectives To investigate the extent to which authors of cluster randomised trials adhered to two basic requirements of the World Medical Association’s Declaration of Helsinki and the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors’ uniform requirements for manuscripts (namely, reporting of resea...
Autores principales: | , , , , , , , , , , , , |
---|---|
Formato: | Texto |
Lenguaje: | English |
Publicado: |
BMJ Publishing Group Ltd.
2011
|
Materias: | |
Acceso en línea: | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3092521/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21562003 http://dx.doi.org/10.1136/bmj.d2496 |
_version_ | 1782203380973699072 |
---|---|
author | Taljaard, Monica McRae, Andrew D Weijer, Charles Bennett, Carol Dixon, Stephanie Taleban, Julia Skea, Zoe Eccles, Martin P Brehaut, Jamie C Donner, Allan Saginur, Raphael Boruch, Robert F Grimshaw, Jeremy M |
author_facet | Taljaard, Monica McRae, Andrew D Weijer, Charles Bennett, Carol Dixon, Stephanie Taleban, Julia Skea, Zoe Eccles, Martin P Brehaut, Jamie C Donner, Allan Saginur, Raphael Boruch, Robert F Grimshaw, Jeremy M |
author_sort | Taljaard, Monica |
collection | PubMed |
description | Objectives To investigate the extent to which authors of cluster randomised trials adhered to two basic requirements of the World Medical Association’s Declaration of Helsinki and the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors’ uniform requirements for manuscripts (namely, reporting of research ethics review and informed consent), to determine whether the adequacy of reporting has improved over time, and to identify characteristics of cluster randomised trials associated with reporting of ethics practices. Design Review of a random sample of published cluster randomised trials from an electronic search in Medline. Setting Cluster randomised trials in health research published in English language journals from 2000 to 2008. Study sample 300 cluster randomised trials published in 150 journals. Results 77 (26%, 95% confidence interval 21% to 31%) trials failed to report ethics review. The proportion reporting ethics review increased significantly over time (P<0.001). Trials with data collection interventions at the individual level were more likely to report ethics review than were trials that used routine data sources only (79% (n=151) v 55% (23); P=0.008). Trials that accounted for clustering in the design and analysis were more likely to report ethics review. The median impact factor of the journal of publication was higher for trials that reported ethics review (3.4 v 2.3; P<0.001). 93 (31%, 26% to 36%) trials failed to report consent. Reporting of consent increased significantly over time (P<0.001). Trials with interventions targeting participants at the individual level were more likely to report consent than were trials with interventions targeting the cluster level (87% (90) v 48% (41); P<0.001). Trials with data collection interventions at the individual level were more likely to report consent than were those that used routine data sources only (78% (146) v 29% (11); P<0.001). Conclusions Reporting of research ethics protections in cluster randomised trials is inadequate. In addition to research ethics approval, authors should report whether informed consent was sought, from whom consent was sought, and what consent was for. |
format | Text |
id | pubmed-3092521 |
institution | National Center for Biotechnology Information |
language | English |
publishDate | 2011 |
publisher | BMJ Publishing Group Ltd. |
record_format | MEDLINE/PubMed |
spelling | pubmed-30925212011-05-19 Inadequate reporting of research ethics review and informed consent in cluster randomised trials: review of random sample of published trials Taljaard, Monica McRae, Andrew D Weijer, Charles Bennett, Carol Dixon, Stephanie Taleban, Julia Skea, Zoe Eccles, Martin P Brehaut, Jamie C Donner, Allan Saginur, Raphael Boruch, Robert F Grimshaw, Jeremy M BMJ Research Objectives To investigate the extent to which authors of cluster randomised trials adhered to two basic requirements of the World Medical Association’s Declaration of Helsinki and the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors’ uniform requirements for manuscripts (namely, reporting of research ethics review and informed consent), to determine whether the adequacy of reporting has improved over time, and to identify characteristics of cluster randomised trials associated with reporting of ethics practices. Design Review of a random sample of published cluster randomised trials from an electronic search in Medline. Setting Cluster randomised trials in health research published in English language journals from 2000 to 2008. Study sample 300 cluster randomised trials published in 150 journals. Results 77 (26%, 95% confidence interval 21% to 31%) trials failed to report ethics review. The proportion reporting ethics review increased significantly over time (P<0.001). Trials with data collection interventions at the individual level were more likely to report ethics review than were trials that used routine data sources only (79% (n=151) v 55% (23); P=0.008). Trials that accounted for clustering in the design and analysis were more likely to report ethics review. The median impact factor of the journal of publication was higher for trials that reported ethics review (3.4 v 2.3; P<0.001). 93 (31%, 26% to 36%) trials failed to report consent. Reporting of consent increased significantly over time (P<0.001). Trials with interventions targeting participants at the individual level were more likely to report consent than were trials with interventions targeting the cluster level (87% (90) v 48% (41); P<0.001). Trials with data collection interventions at the individual level were more likely to report consent than were those that used routine data sources only (78% (146) v 29% (11); P<0.001). Conclusions Reporting of research ethics protections in cluster randomised trials is inadequate. In addition to research ethics approval, authors should report whether informed consent was sought, from whom consent was sought, and what consent was for. BMJ Publishing Group Ltd. 2011-05-11 /pmc/articles/PMC3092521/ /pubmed/21562003 http://dx.doi.org/10.1136/bmj.d2496 Text en © Taljaard et al 2011 This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution Non-commercial License, which permits use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited, the use is non commercial and is otherwise in compliance with the license. See: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/2.0/ and http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/2.0/legalcode. |
spellingShingle | Research Taljaard, Monica McRae, Andrew D Weijer, Charles Bennett, Carol Dixon, Stephanie Taleban, Julia Skea, Zoe Eccles, Martin P Brehaut, Jamie C Donner, Allan Saginur, Raphael Boruch, Robert F Grimshaw, Jeremy M Inadequate reporting of research ethics review and informed consent in cluster randomised trials: review of random sample of published trials |
title | Inadequate reporting of research ethics review and informed consent in cluster randomised trials: review of random sample of published trials |
title_full | Inadequate reporting of research ethics review and informed consent in cluster randomised trials: review of random sample of published trials |
title_fullStr | Inadequate reporting of research ethics review and informed consent in cluster randomised trials: review of random sample of published trials |
title_full_unstemmed | Inadequate reporting of research ethics review and informed consent in cluster randomised trials: review of random sample of published trials |
title_short | Inadequate reporting of research ethics review and informed consent in cluster randomised trials: review of random sample of published trials |
title_sort | inadequate reporting of research ethics review and informed consent in cluster randomised trials: review of random sample of published trials |
topic | Research |
url | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3092521/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21562003 http://dx.doi.org/10.1136/bmj.d2496 |
work_keys_str_mv | AT taljaardmonica inadequatereportingofresearchethicsreviewandinformedconsentinclusterrandomisedtrialsreviewofrandomsampleofpublishedtrials AT mcraeandrewd inadequatereportingofresearchethicsreviewandinformedconsentinclusterrandomisedtrialsreviewofrandomsampleofpublishedtrials AT weijercharles inadequatereportingofresearchethicsreviewandinformedconsentinclusterrandomisedtrialsreviewofrandomsampleofpublishedtrials AT bennettcarol inadequatereportingofresearchethicsreviewandinformedconsentinclusterrandomisedtrialsreviewofrandomsampleofpublishedtrials AT dixonstephanie inadequatereportingofresearchethicsreviewandinformedconsentinclusterrandomisedtrialsreviewofrandomsampleofpublishedtrials AT talebanjulia inadequatereportingofresearchethicsreviewandinformedconsentinclusterrandomisedtrialsreviewofrandomsampleofpublishedtrials AT skeazoe inadequatereportingofresearchethicsreviewandinformedconsentinclusterrandomisedtrialsreviewofrandomsampleofpublishedtrials AT ecclesmartinp inadequatereportingofresearchethicsreviewandinformedconsentinclusterrandomisedtrialsreviewofrandomsampleofpublishedtrials AT brehautjamiec inadequatereportingofresearchethicsreviewandinformedconsentinclusterrandomisedtrialsreviewofrandomsampleofpublishedtrials AT donnerallan inadequatereportingofresearchethicsreviewandinformedconsentinclusterrandomisedtrialsreviewofrandomsampleofpublishedtrials AT saginurraphael inadequatereportingofresearchethicsreviewandinformedconsentinclusterrandomisedtrialsreviewofrandomsampleofpublishedtrials AT boruchrobertf inadequatereportingofresearchethicsreviewandinformedconsentinclusterrandomisedtrialsreviewofrandomsampleofpublishedtrials AT grimshawjeremym inadequatereportingofresearchethicsreviewandinformedconsentinclusterrandomisedtrialsreviewofrandomsampleofpublishedtrials |