OPEN IN READ APP
JOURNAL ARTICLE
REVIEW

Inadequate reporting of research ethics review and informed consent in cluster randomised trials: review of random sample of published trials

Monica Taljaard, Andrew D McRae, Charles Weijer, Carol Bennett, Stephanie Dixon, Julia Taleban, Zoe Skea, Martin P Eccles, Jamie C Brehaut, Allan Donner, Raphael Saginur, Robert F Boruch, Jeremy M Grimshaw
BMJ: British Medical Journal 2011 May 11, 342: d2496
21562003

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.

Discussion

You are not logged in. Sign Up or Log In to join the discussion.

Related Papers

Available on the App Store

Available on the Play Store
Remove bar
Read by QxMD icon Read
21562003
×

Search Tips

Use Boolean operators: AND/OR

diabetic AND foot
diabetes OR diabetic

Exclude a word using the 'minus' sign

Virchow -triad

Use Parentheses

water AND (cup OR glass)

Add an asterisk (*) at end of a word to include word stems

Neuro* will search for Neurology, Neuroscientist, Neurological, and so on

Use quotes to search for an exact phrase

"primary prevention of cancer"
(heart or cardiac or cardio*) AND arrest -"American Heart Association"