ArticleBMJ (Clinical research ed.)1996
Are research ethics committees behaving unethically? Some suggestions for improving performance and accountability.
Article in BMJ (Clinical research ed.), 1996. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 33 papers, 3 of them syntheses 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
33 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.
- Barriers to and facilitators of interventions to counter publication bias: thematic analysis of scholarly articles and stakeholder interviews.BMC health services research · 2014Pooled it
- Short-term low-dose corticosteroids vs placebo and nonsteroidal antiinflammatory drugs in rheumatoid arthritis.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2004Pooled it
- Meta-analysis of short-term low dose prednisolone versus placebo and non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs in rheumatoid arthritis.BMJ (Clinical research ed.) · 1998Pooled it
- CONSORT 2025 explanation and elaboration: updated guideline for reporting randomised trials.BMJ (Clinical research ed.) · 2025Article
- Evidence-based research.Systematic reviews · 2024Article
- Protecting the public from the adverse effects of confused research ethics.Journal of the Royal Society of Medicine · 2021Article
- Redundant trials can be prevented, if the EU clinical trial regulation is applied duly.BMC medical ethics · 2020Article
- Rescuing Informed Consent: How the new "Key Information" and "Reasonable Person" Provisions in the Revised U.S. Common Rule open the door to long Overdue Informed Consent Disclosure Improvements and why we need to walk Through that door.Science and engineering ethics · 2020Article
- Publication and non-publication of clinical trials in PTSD: an overview.Research integrity and peer review · 2019Article
- Randomised placebo-controlled trials of surgery: ethical analysis and guidelines.Journal of medical ethics · 2016Article
- [Magnetic resonance imaging. Density equalizing mapping analysis of global research architecture].Der Radiologe · 2015Review
- Increasing value and reducing waste: addressing inaccessible research.Lancet (London, England) · 2014Article
- Increasing value and reducing waste in biomedical research regulation and management.Lancet (London, England) · 2014Article
- Many more reasons behind difficulties in recruiting patients to randomized controlled trials in psychiatry.Epidemiology and psychiatric sciences · 2013Article
- Sample size determinations in original research protocols for randomised clinical trials submitted to UK research ethics committees: review.BMJ (Clinical research ed.) · 2013Review
- Article
- CONSORT 2010 explanation and elaboration: updated guidelines for reporting parallel group randomised trials.BMJ (Clinical research ed.) · 2010Article
- Using health technology assessment to identify research gaps: an unexploited resource for increasing the value of clinical research.Healthcare policy = Politiques de sante · 2008Article
- Research protocols: waiving confidentiality for the greater good.BMJ (Clinical research ed.) · 2006Review
- Systematic evaluation and comparison of statistical tests for publication bias.Journal of epidemiology · 2005Article
Corrections and comments
- Commented on by
- Commented on by
- Commented on by
- Commented on by
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The results of recent empirical investigations in research synthesis imply that research ethics committees are behaving unethically by endorsing new research which is unnecessary and by acquiescing in biased under-reporting of research which they have approved. The performance and accountability of research ethics committees would be improved if they required those proposing research to present systematic reviews of relevant previous research in support of their applications; to summarise the results of these reviews in the information prepared for potential participants; to register new controlled trials at inception; and to ensure that the results of these trials are made publicly available within a reasonable period of time after completion of data collection.
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.