A systematic review finds underreporting of ethics approval, informed consent, and incentives in clinical trials

Recording and reporting of recruitment strategies in trial protocols, registries, and publications was nonexistent

OBJECTIVES

To investigate how trialists record and report their recruitment strategies and the recruiter details in trial protocols, registries, and publications.

STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING

A retrospective study of ovarian cancer (OC) trials between 2010 and 2021. We reviewed 154 trial publications, 30 protocols, 105 registry entries, and 26 trial websites associated with 88 phase III OC trials.

RESULTS

None of the 88 trials reviewed published a recruitment strategy or made reference to an available recruitment strategy for the trial. Only 31% (n = 28) made reference to the recruiter but this was reported only in the protocol so we have no evidence these named recruiters performed the task. None of the trials reviewed which closed early or extended recruitment timelines due to slow accrual, reported measures taken to improve recruitment rates before stoppages or changes took place. There were disparities in the reported target recruitment numbers between the protocol, the publication, and the registry.

CONCLUSION

Recruitment strategies exist, and we are sure most trial centers use recruitment strategies, but they need to be recorded and reported, as part of the supplementary material if not the main publication, so we can evaluate their effectiveness.

Reporting of Research Ethics in Studies Focusing on Foot Health in Patients with Rheumatoid Arthritis - A Systematic Review

Research ethics is a fundamental part of the entire research. Patients with rheumatoid arthritis are sensitive group of research participants because their long-term health problems cause significant changes in their foot health. In foot health research, data are usually collected through a clinical assessment of the foot or questionnaires. However, there is limited evidence of the reported research ethics of empirical studies on foot health in patients with rheumatoid arthritis. Therefore this review aimed to analyze the reported research ethics of peer-reviewed empirical studies focusing on foot health in patients with rheumatoid arthritis as research participants. This systematic review used the Medline/PubMed, CINAHL, and Embase databases. A total of 1,653 records were identified, and 32 articles were included in the final analysis. Reporting research ethics in studies of patients with rheumatoid arthritis is fragmented, focusing predominantly on ethical approval and informed consent and lacking a broader discussion about research ethics.

Ethical approval and informed consent reporting in ASEAN journals: a systematic review

Background and objective: Scientific publication is a way to disseminate knowledge to the scientific community. However, an article usually has very little information on how and why ethical approval (EA) and informed consent (IC) was obtained, which can make it very difficult for a reader to evaluate the ethical validity of the study. While many internationally recognized journals and publishers have already adopted a high EA/IC reporting standard, many journals still fail to do so. The aim of this study was to explore the EA/IC reporting standards, as well as their implementation, of the Association of Southeastern Asian Nation (ASEAN) member journals.Methods: A literature search was performed in PubMed for articles that were published in journals from ASEAN member states in 2016. The articles were then reviewed, categorized into study types, and given two scores-one for their EA statement and one for their IC statement-ranging from 0-4. A list of journals was compiled from the articles retrieved and their instructions to authors regarding EA/IC statements were scored on a scale of 0-2. The data was statistically analyzed using Chi-square test (2-sided) with SPSS (version 21) with p-value < .05 being considered statistically significant.Results: While a high proportion of articles adequately reported EA, many failed to report IC. Journals with better EA and IC instruction scores had a higher percentage of articles that adequately reported EA/IC. There were significant relationships between EA/IC statement scores and journals' instructions scores (EA: p = .002; IC: p = .019).Conclusions: There may be a need for journals to play key roles in advocating the importance of reporting EA and IC by strictly enforcing high EA/IC reporting standards and refusing the publication of articles that fail to comply.

Ethics reporting practices in randomized controlled trials of physical therapy interventions after stroke

BACKGROUND

Adequate reporting of ethics-related research methods promotes convergence on best ethics practices. In physical therapy, studies on ethics reporting are limited to few aspects, and none focuses on stroke research. Our objectives were to investigate the reporting of multiple ethics-related features and its variation over time, and the characteristics of the studies associated with ethics reporting in Randomized Controlled Trials (RCTs) of physical therapy interventions after stroke.

METHODS

A random sample of RCTs published in the years 2004, 2009 and 2014, was extracted from the PubMed database, regardless of the publishing journal. For each trial we investigated year of publication, trial registration, sample size, stroke subtype, phase of the disease, setting, interventions and dosing, outcome measures, outcome of the study, PEDro score and 5-year impact factor of the publishing journal. Reporting of ethics-related issues was analyzed. Differences between groups were examined. Multiple regression was used to evaluate the relationship between ethics-related issues reporting and some studies' characteristics.

RESULTS

Eighty studies were reviewed. Groups differed in the proportion of registered trials (p = .009), 5-year impact factor (p = .011), assessment of cognitive capacity (p = .049), declaration about conflict of interest (p < .001), and number of ethics-related issues reported (p = .009). The proportion of issues reported ranged from 92.5% (consent obtaining) to 0% (eventual follow up care). Post-hoc comparisons showed significantly greater reporting of ethics issues in trials published in the year 2014 compared to 2004 (p = .014, 95%CI = 0.40/4.26). Year of publication and PEDro score were significant predictors of adequate reporting.

CONCLUSIONS

Authors, editors, and reviewers should be more rigorous and demanding about the reporting of ethic-related methods in randomized controlled trials of physical therapy interventions after stroke.