Literature DB >> 15863678

Methodological quality and reporting of ethical requirements in phase III cancer trials.

J J Tuech1, P Pessaux, G Moutel, V Thoma, S Schraub, C Herve.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND: The approval of a research ethics committee (REC) and obtaining informed consent from patients (ICP) could be considered the main issues in the ethics of research with human beings. The aim of this study was to assess both methodological quality and ethical quality, and also to assess the relationship between these two qualities in randomised phase III cancer trials.
METHOD: Methodological quality (Jadad score) and ethical quality (Berdeu score) were assessed for all randomised controlled trials (RCTs) published in 10 international journals between 1999 and 2001 (n = 231).
RESULTS: The mean Jadad score was 9.86 +/- 1.117. The methodological quality was poor in 75 RCTs (Jadad score <9). The mean Berdeu score was 0.42 +/- 0.133. The mean ethical quality score for poor methodological quality RCTs (n = 75) was 0.39 +/- 0.133; it was 0.43 +/- 0.133 for good (n = 156) methodological quality RCTs (p = 0.07). There was improvement in ethical quality according to the year of commencement of the trials (p < 0.001). There was no correlation between methodological quality and the number of participating patients (R2 = 0.003, p = 0.78), between ethical quality and the number of participating patients (R2 = 0.003, p = 0.76 ), or between ethical quality and methodological quality (R2 = 0.012, p = 0.1). ICP and REC approval were not obtained for 21 and 77 trials respectively.
CONCLUSION: The association between methodological quality and the reporting of ethical requirements probably reflects the respect shown for patients during the whole research process. These results suggest that closer attention to the conduct of clinical research, as well as the reporting of its ethical aspects, is needed.

Entities:  

Keywords:  Biomedical and Behavioral Research; Empirical Approach

Mesh:

Year:  2005        PMID: 15863678      PMCID: PMC1734140          DOI: 10.1136/jme.2003.007435

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Med Ethics        ISSN: 0306-6800            Impact factor:   2.903


  30 in total

Review 1.  What is the quality of the reporting of research ethics in publications of nursing home research?

Authors:  J H Karlawish; G W Hougham; C B Stocking; G A Sachs
Journal:  J Am Geriatr Soc       Date:  1999-01       Impact factor: 5.562

2.  The randomized controlled trial gets a middle-aged checkup.

Authors:  A R Jadad; D Rennie
Journal:  JAMA       Date:  1998-01-28       Impact factor: 56.272

3.  Assessing the quality of reports of randomized clinical trials: is blinding necessary?

Authors:  A R Jadad; R A Moore; D Carroll; C Jenkinson; D J Reynolds; D J Gavaghan; H J McQuay
Journal:  Control Clin Trials       Date:  1996-02

Review 4.  Assessing the quality of randomized controlled trials. Current issues and future directions.

Authors:  D Moher; A R Jadad; P Tugwell
Journal:  Int J Technol Assess Health Care       Date:  1996       Impact factor: 2.188

5.  CMAJ endorses the CONSORT statement. CONsolidation of Standards for Reporting Trials.

Authors:  P Huston; J Hoey
Journal:  CMAJ       Date:  1996-11-01       Impact factor: 8.262

6.  Better reporting of randomised controlled trials: the CONSORT statement.

Authors:  D G Altman
Journal:  BMJ       Date:  1996-09-07

7.  Disclosure to the reader of institutional review board approval and informed consent.

Authors:  D Rennie; V Yank
Journal:  JAMA       Date:  1997-03-19       Impact factor: 56.272

8.  Subverting randomization in controlled trials.

Authors:  K F Schulz
Journal:  JAMA       Date:  1995-11-08       Impact factor: 56.272

9.  Meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. A concern for standards;.

Authors:  D Moher; I Olkin
Journal:  JAMA       Date:  1995-12-27       Impact factor: 56.272

10.  Evaluation of Institutional Review Board review and informed consent in publications of human research in critical care medicine.

Authors:  I Matot; R Pizov; C L Sprung
Journal:  Crit Care Med       Date:  1998-09       Impact factor: 7.598

View more
  6 in total

1.  Methodological and ethical quality of randomized controlled clinical trials in gastrointestinal surgery.

Authors:  Valérie Bridoux; Grégoire Moutel; Horace Roman; Babak Kianifard; Francis Michot; Christian Herve; Jean-Jacques Tuech
Journal:  J Gastrointest Surg       Date:  2012-07-10       Impact factor: 3.452

2.  Methodological and ethical quality of surgical trials from 2016 to 2020.

Authors:  Eloise Papet; Grégoire Moutel; Jean Pinson; Matthieu Monge; Edouard Roussel; Tom Teniere; Jean-Jacques Tuech; Valérie Bridoux
Journal:  Langenbecks Arch Surg       Date:  2022-08-27       Impact factor: 2.895

Review 3.  Inadequate reporting of research ethics review and informed consent in cluster randomised trials: review of random sample of published trials.

Authors:  Monica Taljaard; Andrew D McRae; Charles Weijer; Carol Bennett; Stephanie Dixon; Julia Taleban; Zoe Skea; Martin P Eccles; Jamie C Brehaut; Allan Donner; Raphael Saginur; Robert F Boruch; Jeremy M Grimshaw
Journal:  BMJ       Date:  2011-05-11

Review 4.  Psychological Interventions in Chemotherapy-Induced Nausea and Vomiting in Women with Breast Cancer: A Systematic Review.

Authors:  Elahe Samami; Zohreh Shahhosseini; Zeinab Hamzehgardeshi; Forouzan Elyasi
Journal:  Iran J Med Sci       Date:  2022-03

Review 5.  Systematic evaluation of the methodology of randomized controlled trials of anticoagulation in patients with cancer.

Authors:  Gabriel Rada; Holger J Schünemann; Nawman Labedi; Pierre El-Hachem; Victor F Kairouz; Elie A Akl
Journal:  BMC Cancer       Date:  2013-02-14       Impact factor: 4.430

6.  Transparent reporting of recruitment and informed consent approaches in clinical trials recruiting children with minor parents in sub-Saharan Africa: a secondary analysis based on a systematic review.

Authors:  Angela De Pretto-Lazarova; Domnita Oana Brancati-Badarau; Christian Burri
Journal:  BMC Public Health       Date:  2021-07-28       Impact factor: 3.295

  6 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.