ArticleJournal of medical ethics and history of medicine2014
Continuing review of ethics in clinical trials: a surveillance study in Iran.
Article in Journal of medical ethics and history of medicine, 2014. 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
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
In recent years, notable measures have been taken to protect the rights of participants in biomedical research in Iran. The present study examines possible trends in adherence to ethical codes regarding informed consent after the development of the National Code of Ethics in Biomedical Research (NCEBR) and establishment of research ethics committees. In this retrospective study, 126 dissertations from Tehran University of Medical Sciences were evaluated for adherence to ethical codes. These dissertations were all in clinical trial design and had been presented in the years 1999 and 2009, that is, precisely before and after the development of the NCEBR. A checklist was developed to evaluate the ethical issues associated with informed consent. A single investigator retrieved and evaluated the consent forms from the dissertations. Borderline cases were discussed with other investigators to reach a consensus decision. Based on the checklist, the Standardized Ethical Score (SES) was calculated for each consent form. The mean SES and the rate of consent form attachment were compared between the two years. In total, 70 dissertations had reported obtaining informed consent from study participants, whereas consent forms were attached in only 22 dissertations (17.50%). The percentage of dissertations with the consent form attached increased over time from 12.2% in 1999 to 20.8% in 2009 (P > 0.05), but the majority still did not include a consent form. Moreover, the mean SES of consent forms was significantly higher in 1999 (0.746) than in 2009 (0.428), highlighting the need for more training of researchers and improved surveillance by the ethics committees. A great amount of effort is still needed to make the consent process more ethical, especially for dissertations as a less visible part of academic research. As for students, more systematic training focused on research ethics should be implemented prior to thesis submission.
Indexed as
Identifiers
26587202PMC4648212What 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.