SynthesisBMC medical ethics2019
Mention of ethical review and informed consent in the reports of research undertaken during the armed conflict in Darfur (2004-2012): a systematic review.
Synthesis in BMC medical ethics, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 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
8 citing papers in PubMed.
- Ethical Issues Conducting Research During War and Violent Conflict: A Review.Developing world bioethics · 2026Review
- Article
- Why did not all studies conducted during Darfur's armed conflict obtain ethics approval? Insights from a qualitative study.BMC medical ethics · 2025Article
- Is the UN receiving ethical approval for its research with human participants?Journal of medical ethics · 2025Article
- Scoping review and thematic analysis of informed consent in humanitarian emergencies.BMC medical ethics · 2024Article
- Practices of Informed Written Consent for Elective Urological Procedures at a Tertiary Care Hospital in Sudan.Cureus · 2024Article
- Ethical Challenges in Oral Healthcare Services Provided by Non-Governmental Organizations for Refugees in Germany.Journal of bioethical inquiry · 2024Article
- A systematic literature review of the ethics of conducting research in the humanitarian setting.Conflict and health · 2020Article
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
Abstract
backgroundArmed conflict in Darfur, west Sudan since 2003 has led to the influx of about 100 international humanitarian UN and non-governmental organizations to help the affected population. Many of their humanitarian interventions included the collection of human personal data and/or biosamples, and these activities are often associated with ethical issues. A systematic review was conducted to assess the proportion of publicly available online reports of the research activities undertaken on humans in Darfur between 2004 and 2012 that mention obtaining ethical approval and/or informed consent.
methodsThis systematic review is based on a systematic literature search of Complex Emergency Database, ReliefWeb, PubMed), followed by a hand search for the hardcopies of the eligible reports archived in the Centre for Research on the Epidemiology of Disasters (CRED) in Brussels.
resultsThe online search showed that out of the 68 eligible studies, 13.2% (9) reported gaining ethical approval and 42.6% (29) that an informed consent was obtained from the participants. The CRED search included 138 eligible reports. None of these reports mentioned gaining ethical approval and 17 (12.3%) mentioned obtaining informed consent from their participants.
conclusionsThe proportion of studies reporting ethical review and informed consent was smaller than might be expected, so we suggest five possible explanations for these findings. This review provides empirical evidence that can help in planning ethical conduct of research in humanitarian settings.
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.