Background: Authors are required to describe in their manuscripts ethical approval from an appropriate committee and how consent was obtained from participants when research involves human participants.
Objective: To assess the reporting of these protections for several study designs in general medical journals.
Design: A consecutive series of research papers published in the Annals of Internal Medicine, BMJ, JAMA, Lancet and The New England Journal of Medicine between February and May 2003 were reviewed for the reporting of ethical approval and patient consent. Ethical approval, name of approving committee, type of consent, data source and whether the study used data collected as part of a study reported elsewhere were recorded. Differences in failure to report approval and consent by study design, journal and vulnerable study population were evaluated using multivariable logistic regression.
Results: Ethical approval and consent were not mentioned in 31% and 47% of manuscripts, respectively. 88 (27%) papers failed to report both approval and consent. Failure to mention ethical approval or consent was significantly more likely in all study designs (except case–control and qualitative studies) than in randomised controlled trials (RCTs). Failure to mention approval was most common in the BMJ and was significantly more likely than in The New England Journal of Medicine. Failure to mention consent was most common in the BMJ and was significantly more likely than in all other journals. No significant differences in approval or consent were found when comparing studies of vulnerable and non-vulnerable participants.
Conclusion: The reporting of ethical approval and consent in RCTs has improved, but journals are less good at reporting this information for other study designs. Journals should publish this information for all research on human participants.
- RCT, randomised controlled trial
Statistics from Altmetric.com
If you wish to reuse any or all of this article please use the link below which will take you to the Copyright Clearance Center’s RightsLink service. You will be able to get a quick price and instant permission to reuse the content in many different ways.
Funding: This study was funded by the BMJ Publishing Group’s research budget.
Competing interests: SS works as a researcher for the BMJ Publishing Group. AG was on a student placement at the BMJ Publishing Group while conducting this research.
Contributors: SS designed the study. RP was the primary data extractor, assisted by AG to confirm the validity of the data extraction. SS and RP managed the data and AH carried out statistical analysis. All authors helped in writing the paper.
Read the full text or download the PDF:
Other content recommended for you
- Citations of scientific results and conflicts of interest: the case of mammography screening
- Identifying low-value clinical practices in critical care medicine: protocol for a scoping review
- Failure to report and provide commentary on research ethics board approval and informed consent in medical journals
- Effect of editors’ implementation of CONSORT guidelines on the reporting of abstracts in high impact medical journals: interrupted time series analysis
- Is that it? How online articles have changed over the past five years
- Honorary and ghost authorship in high impact biomedical journals: a cross sectional survey
- Reporting quality of randomised controlled trial abstracts among high-impact general medical journals: a review and analysis
- Comparison of treatment effect sizes associated with surrogate and final patient relevant outcomes in randomised controlled trials: meta-epidemiological study
- Prospective analyses of sex/gender-related publication decisions in general medical journals: editorial rejection of population-based women’s reproductive physiology
- How is occupational medicine represented in the major journals in general medicine?