ArticleBMJ (Clinical research ed.)1995
Publication: an ethical imperative.
Article in BMJ (Clinical research ed.), 1995. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 23 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.
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
23 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Pooled it
- Registration of intervention trials of Traditional Chinese Medicine for four neurological diseases on Chinese Clinical Trial Registry and ClinicalTrials.gov: a narrative review.Journal of traditional Chinese medicine = Chung i tsa chih ying wen pan · 2022Review
- Publication bias in pediatric emergence delirium: a cross-sectional analysis of ClinicalTrials.gov and ClinicalTrialsRegister.eu.BMJ open · 2020Article
- Publication status of completed registered studies in paediatric appendicitis: a cross-sectional analysis.BMJ open · 2018Observational
- Randomized clinical trials in orthodontics are rarely registered a priori and often published late or not at all.PloS one · 2017Article
- Article
- Can UK NHS research ethics committees effectively monitor publication and outcome reporting bias?BMC medical ethics · 2015Article
- Non-publication of large randomized clinical trials: cross sectional analysis.BMJ (Clinical research ed.) · 2013Review
- Learning from failure--rationale and design for a study about discontinuation of randomized trials (DISCO study).BMC medical research methodology · 2012Article
- Review
- Attitudes of research ethics board chairs towards disclosure of research results to participants: results of a national survey.Journal of medical ethics · 2007Article
- Publish and perish: a case study of publication ethics in a rural community.Journal of medical ethics · 2006Article
- A concern that drug companies cannot ignore.Journal of the Royal Society of Medicine · 2005Review
- Methodological quality and reporting of ethical requirements in phase III cancer trials.Journal of medical ethics · 2005Article
- Intellectual property and the commercialization of research and development.Science and engineering ethics · 2005Review
- Ethics in exercise science research.Sports medicine (Auckland, N.Z.) · 2002Review
- Bias in reporting clinical trials.British journal of clinical pharmacology · 1998Article
- Are research ethics committees behaving unethically? Some suggestions for improving performance and accountability.BMJ (Clinical research ed.) · 1996Article
- Pharmaceutical trials in general practice: the first 100 protocols. An audit by the clinical research ethics committee of the Royal College of General Practitioners.BMJ (Clinical research ed.) · 1996Article
- Systematic reviews: what can they do for you?Journal of the Royal Society of Medicine · 1996Article
Corrections and comments
- Commented on by
- Commented on by
Authors and funding
1 author.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Publication of medical research is both a monitor of the researcher's ethics and an audit of the local or regional ethics committee that approved it. Selectivity of publication or of the intention to publish lessens this audit. Opinions differ about what is ethically allowable in clinical and benchtop medical research. Ethical permission and ethical monitoring of medical research are subject to a hierarchy of pyramidal controls, starting in hospital and ending with the local, institutional, or regional ethics committee. Currently, such committees function with widely varying degrees of efficiency and quality of output, and with differing viewpoints on many ethical issues. Without an a priori insistence by institutional ethics committees that there be an intention to publish all medical research involving human subjects, ethics committees cannot routinely be subject to the scrutiny or audit which they themselves demand of researchers.
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.