ArticleBMC medical ethics2026
Reporting of ethical aspects in validation studies conducted in Peru.
Article in BMC medical ethics, 2026. 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
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThe validation of measurement instruments requires not only psychometric rigor but also transparent reporting of ethical principles to ensure the protection of human participants and research integrity. However, the extent to which ethical aspects are adequately reported in validation studies conducted in Peru remains unknown.
methodsA descriptive study was conducted including validation studies published between 2021 and 2024 by authors affiliated with Peruvian institutions and indexed in Scopus. Reporting of ethics committee approval, informed consent, assent, data confidentiality, funding, conflicts of interest, and adherence to ethical guidelines was assessed. Factors associated with reporting ethics committee approval were explored using Poisson regression models with robust variance to estimate prevalence ratios.
resultsA total of 208 studies were included. The majority of the studies were published in English (52.9%), and the most common study populations were students (36.5%). Ethics committee approval was reported in 77.4% of the articles, and informed consent in 91.8%. Only 63.4% specified an ethics approval code, and 61.0% failed to report assent when it was applicable. Compared with articles published in Q1 journals, those published in lower-quartile and non-quartile journals showed a lower prevalence of reporting ethics committee approval, and articles published in Spanish showed a lower prevalence than those published in English, whereas studies with five or more authors and multicity designs showed a higher prevalence of reporting ethics committee approval.
conclusionSubstantial gaps persist in the transparency of ethical reporting in validation studies conducted in Peru. Strengthening editorial requirements and promoting greater awareness among researchers are essential to enhance ethical compliance and protect research participants.
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.