ArticleJournal of medical ethics and history of medicine2013
Continuing review of ethics in clinical trials: a surveillance study in Iran.
Article in Journal of medical ethics and history of medicine, 2013. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
This study was conducted to examine adherence to ethical principles during research and the necessity to conduct systematic and continuing review of ongoing research in Iran. All clinical trials approved by the Research Ethics Committee of Tehran University of Medical Sciences (TUMS) ongoing in 2007 (n = 21) were reviewed through receiving principal investigators' (PIs) reports, as well as reviewing patient consent forms. Two questionnaires were sent to PIs, one to collect information about the study and the other to evaluate PIs' perception and awareness about ethical codes of clinical trials. A representative of the TUMS research ethics committee was sent to the research site to fill a checklist by reviewing the obtained informed consent and fill the other checklist by interviewing a sample of participants regarding their perception of their volunteer participation in the clinical trial and receiving adequate information. Only in 66.7% of the surveyed trials the objectives of the trial had been explained in the informed consent, and in 38.6% of the trials it was mentioned in informed consent that participation is voluntary. Among participants, 34.7% (n = 26) were not aware they were enrolled in a research project, 29.3% (n = 22) had not understood the information they had received, 74.7% (n = 56) did not know they could refuse to participate and still receive care from their physician, and 58.7% did not realize they were free to drop out of the study at any time. The results point to the need for continuing review of clinical research, especially clinical trials, and the necessity for thorough assessment of patient consent forms during the process of approval in terms of their contents and their understandability.
Indexed as
Identifiers
24427485PMC3885271What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.