| Autor: |
Rowan-Legg, A., Weijer, C., Gao, J., Fernandez, C. |
| Předmět: |
|
| Zdroj: |
Journal of Medical Ethics; Jan2009, Vol. 35 Issue 1, p74-78, 5p, 4 Charts, 1 Graph |
| Abstrakt: |
Objectives: To compare 2005 and 1995 ethics guidelines from journal editors to authors regarding requirements for institutional review board (IRB) approval and conflict-of- interest (CDI) disclosure. Design: A descriptive study of the ethics guidelines published in 103 English-language biomedical journals listed in the Abridged Index Medicus in 1995 and 2005. Each journal was reviewed by the principal author and one of four independent reviewers. Results: During the period, the proportion of journals requiring lAB approval increased from 42% (95% Cl 32.2% to 51.2%, p<0.001) to 76% (95% Cl 66.4% to 83.1%, p<0.001). In 2005, an additional 9% referred to the Declaration of Helsinki or the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors' Uniform requirements for ethical guidelines; 15% (95% Cl 8.5% to 22.5%, p<0.01) provided ambiguous or no requirements. The proportion of journals requiring COI disclosure increased from 75% (95% Cl 66.6% to 83.3%, p<0.05) to 94% (95% Cl 89.4% to 98.6%, p'<0.05); 41% had comprehensive requirements, while some addressed only funding source (6%), were vague (10%) or both (14%). Criteria for authorship rose from 40% (95% Cl 30.5% to 49.5%, p<0.05) to 72% (95% Cl 63.3% to 80.7%, p<0.05). Journals with higher impact factors were more likely to require lAB approval (p<0.01). Journals in anaesthesia and radiology all required lAB approval; requirements in other disciplines varied. Conclusions: Instructions to authors regarding ethical standards have improved. Some remain incomplete, especially regarding the scope of disclosure of CDI. The ethical guidelines presented to authors need further clarification and standardisation. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR] |
| Databáze: |
Complementary Index |
| Externí odkaz: |
|
