Objective To investigate the report rate of ethical review in registered Chinese trials records.
Methods Chinese trials recorded in WHO primary registries and http://clinicaltrials.gov to 14 July 2009 were identified. The report rates of ethical review and each of the 20 items in WHO's Trial Registration Data Set were calculated. Correlation of the item's report rate with the ethical review report rate was assessed. PubMed, EMBASE, CNKI and CBM (from the establishment of each database to 14 July 2009) were also searched to collect the full texts of completed trials to calculate the report rate of ethical review in the result publications.
Results A total of 1247 records were identified, and 687 (55.1%) reported ethical review. The records reporting secondary sponsor(s), contact for public queries and key secondary outcomes were more likely to report ethical review information (66.3% vs 44.3%, 38.1% vs 28.5%, 53.9% vs 51.8%). The ethical review report rate of trials sponsored by industry was lower than those sponsored by non-industry (40.9% vs 51.9%). The report rates of ethical review for self-supported trials (83.5%) and trials with unidentified sources of monetary or material support (66.7%) were lower than the average ethical review report rate for records in the Chinese Clinical Trial Registration Center (ChiCTR). The ethical review report rate was not high in the result publications (84.3% in http://clinicaltrials.gov, 50.0% in ChiCTR).
Conclusion Registered Chinese trials records report ethical review inadequately. Incomplete registration is correlated with not reporting ethical review. Medical journals should inspect ethical review more critically.
- Clinical trial registration
- ethical review
- integration of trial registration and ethical review
- report rate
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 declared.
Provenance and peer review Not commissioned; externally peer reviewed.
Read the full text or download the PDF:
Other content recommended for you
- Quality assessment of clinical trial registration with traditional Chinese medicine in WHO registries
- Trends in global clinical trial registration: an analysis of numbers of registered clinical trials in different parts of the world from 2004 to 2013
- Prospective registration and reporting of trial number in randomised clinical trials: global cross sectional study of the adoption of ICMJE and Declaration of Helsinki recommendations
- Pharmacokinetic research in children: an analysis of registered records of clinical trials
- Telehealth versus self-directed lifestyle intervention to promote healthy blood pressure: a protocol for a randomised controlled trial
- Clinical trial transparency in the Americas: the need to coordinate regulatory spheres
- From registration, protocol to report: are COVID-19-related RCTs in mainland China consistent? A systematic review of clinical trial registry and literature
- Characteristics and publication fate of unregistered and retrospectively registered clinical trials submitted to The BMJ over 4 years
- Comparative efficacy and tolerability of pharmacological interventions for attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder in children, adolescents and adults: protocol for a systematic review and network meta-analysis
- Prospective registration trends, reasons for retrospective registration and mechanisms to increase prospective registration compliance: descriptive analysis and survey