Background: The Declaration of Helsinki prohibits the publication of articles that do not meet defined ethical standards for reporting of research ethics board (REB) approval and informed consent. Despite this prohibition and a call to highlight the deficiency for the reader, articles with potential ethical shortcomings continue to be published.
Objective: To determine what proportion of articles in major medical journals lack statements confirming REB approval and informed consent, and whether accompanying commentary alerts readers to this deficiency.
Design: Retrospective, observational study.
Setting: Online review of five major medical journals.
Population: All clinical research articles published online between 1 January 2005 and 31 December 2006 in the BMJ, Lancet, Annals of Internal Medicine, JAMA and the New England Journal of Medicine.
Measurements: Statement of REB approval and informed consent.
Results: Of 1780 articles reviewed, 1133 (63.7%) met inclusion criteria (manuscripts reporting human subjects, human tissue or identifiable personal data research), 36 (3.2%) articles lacked a statement of REB approval, 62 (5.5%) lacked disclosure of informed consent and 15 (1.3%) articles lacked both. Articles that did not state REB approval were associated with not stating informed consent (p<0.001). There were no editorial comments to alert readers to the lack of either REB approval or informed consent statements associated with any of the deficient articles.
Conclusions: Articles that lack explicit statements of REB approval and informed consent are infrequent but continue to be published in major medical journals without editorial statements to alert the reader to this deficiency.
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.
Competing interests: None.
Read the full text or download the PDF:
Other content recommended for you
- FLUID trial: a protocol for a hospital-wide open-label cluster crossover pragmatic comparative effectiveness randomised pilot trial
- FLUID trial: a hospital-wide open-label cluster cross-over pragmatic comparative effectiveness randomised pilot trial comparing normal saline to Ringer’s lactate
- Creation of an electronic patient-reported outcome measure platform Voxe: a mixed methods study protocol in paediatric solid organ transplantation
- Mixed-methods study protocol for an evaluation of the mental health transition navigator model in child and adolescent mental health services: the Navigator Evaluation Advancing Transitions (NEAT) study
- Evaluation of an OPEN Stewardship generated feedback intervention to improve antibiotic prescribing among primary care veterinarians in Ontario, Canada and Israel: protocol for evaluating usability and an interrupted time-series analysis
- The At Home/Chez Soi trial protocol: a pragmatic, multi-site, randomised controlled trial of a Housing First intervention for homeless individuals with mental illness in five Canadian cities
- Prospective analyses of sex/gender-related publication decisions in general medical journals: editorial rejection of population-based women’s reproductive physiology
- Reporting ethics committee approval and patient consent by study design in five general medical journals
- Introduction to The Olivieri symposium
- A 30 year perspective of the quality of evidence published in 25 clinical journals: Signs of change?