What question did this study set out to answer?

The study aims to evaluate how well authors of cluster randomised trials reported ethics review and informed consent, and to assess trends over time.

May 11, 2011Open Access

Inadequate reporting of research ethics review and informed consent in cluster randomised trials: review of random sample of published trials

Key Points

The study aims to evaluate how well authors of cluster randomised trials reported ethics review and informed consent, and to assess trends over time.
Review of a random sample of 300 cluster randomised trials published between 2000 and 2008
Assessment based on adherence to ethics reporting standards set by the World Medical Association's Declaration of Helsinki
Analysis of variations in reporting practices based on trial characteristics and journal impact factors.
26% of trials failed to report ethics review, but reporting significantly increased over time (P<0.001)
Trials with individual-level data collection reported ethics review more frequently (79% vs 55%, P=0.008)
31% of trials failed to report informed consent, with significant improvements observed over time (P<0.001).

Abstract

OBJECTIVES: To investigate the extent to which authors of cluster randomised trials adhered to two basic requirements of the World Medical Association's Declaration of Helsinki and the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors' uniform requirements for manuscripts (namely, reporting of research ethics review and informed consent), to determine whether the adequacy of reporting has improved over time, and to identify characteristics of cluster randomised trials associated with reporting of ethics practices. DESIGN: Review of a random sample of published cluster randomised trials from an electronic search in Medline. SETTING: Cluster randomised trials in health research published in English language journals from 2000 to 2008. Study sample 300 cluster randomised trials published in 150 journals. RESULTS: 77 (26%, 95% confidence interval 21% to 31%) trials failed to report ethics review. The proportion reporting ethics review increased significantly over time (P<0.001). Trials with data collection interventions at the individual level were more likely to report ethics review than were trials that used routine data sources only (79% (n=151) v 55% (23); P=0.008). Trials that accounted for clustering in the design and analysis were more likely to report ethics review. The median impact factor of the journal of publication was higher for trials that reported ethics review (3.4 v 2.3; P<0.001). 93 (31%, 26% to 36%) trials failed to report consent. Reporting of consent increased significantly over time (P<0.001). Trials with interventions targeting participants at the individual level were more likely to report consent than were trials with interventions targeting the cluster level (87% (90) v 48% (41); P<0.001). Trials with data collection interventions at the individual level were more likely to report consent than were those that used routine data sources only (78% (146) v 29% (11); P<0.001). CONCLUSIONS: Reporting of research ethics protections in cluster randomised trials is inadequate. In addition to research ethics approval, authors should report whether informed consent was sought, from whom consent was sought, and what consent was for.

Bookmark

View Full Paper