ArticleArquivos brasileiros de cirurgia digestiva : ABCD = Brazilian archives of digestive surgery
EVALUATION OF ETHICAL IN INSTRUCTIONS TO AUTHORS OF BRAZILIAN SURGICAL JOURNALS.
Article in Arquivos brasileiros de cirurgia digestiva : ABCD = Brazilian archives of digestive surgery. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Compliance with research participant protection guidelines by Nigerian medical journals.BMC medical ethics · 2025Article
- Systematic review and meta-analyses of studies analysing instructions to authors from 1987 to 2017.Nature communications · 2021Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThe instructions to authors are the only means of communication between researchers and the editorial standards of a scientific journal. One of the mandatory items to be contained therein is about the ethical part, to prevent new research to carry out abuses with the enrolled on the research are published and stimulated.
aimTo verify the ethical questions on the guidelines of Brazilian surgical journals Method: Thirteen selected journals were divided into two groups: general surgery (n=3), and surgical specialty (n=10). The instructions to authors were analyzed by the quote of ethical requirements based on a specific research protocol, ranging from zero to six points.
resultsThe average score of the general surgery group was similar than that of the surgical specialty group (3.66±0.57 vs 3.30±1.15, p=0.6154). When each ethical requirement was compared between the groups, there was no significant difference between the ethical requirements (p<0.05).
conclusionThere was respect for most ethical questions evaluated, with no difference between the journals of general or specialty surgery.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What 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.