Chandrashekar Janakiram1, Corinna Porteri2. 1. a Department of Public Health Dentistry , Amrita School of Dentistry , Edapally , Ernakulam , India. 2. b Bioethics Unit , IRCCS San Giovanni Di Dio Fatebenefratelli , Brescia , Italy.
Abstract
AIM: To study the proportion of articles reporting ethical review board (ERB) approval and informed consent process (ICP) in articles published in dental journals in India. METHODS: A descriptive study was designed, and ten Indian dental journals published by different dental specialty professional associations were selected. Among 702 retrieved articles, from 40 issues of the 10 selected journals published in 2008 and 2011, 428 meet the inclusion criteria, and they were analyzed. The entire text of the articles was manually searched for statements for ICP and ERB approval. The data was retrieved independently by two observers using an ad hoc developed template. RESULTS: 10.3% (44) of authors stated ICP, while 9.8 % (42) reported ERB approval in their articles; 6.1% (26) articles reported both the ICP and ERB. There are 21 times more chances that authors who report the ERB will also report ICP in their articles when compared to authors who report either ICP or ERB only (OR 21.3, 95% CI 8.5-52.8). Seven journals stated the ethical process reporting in the instructions for authors. Overall, 15.7% articles declared the conflicts of interests. CONCLUSIONS: The low compliance of reporting ethical protection measures in dental research among Indian dental journals is of high concern.
AIM: To study the proportion of articles reporting ethical review board (ERB) approval and informed consent process (ICP) in articles published in dental journals in India. METHODS: A descriptive study was designed, and ten Indian dental journals published by different dental specialty professional associations were selected. Among 702 retrieved articles, from 40 issues of the 10 selected journals published in 2008 and 2011, 428 meet the inclusion criteria, and they were analyzed. The entire text of the articles was manually searched for statements for ICP and ERB approval. The data was retrieved independently by two observers using an ad hoc developed template. RESULTS: 10.3% (44) of authors stated ICP, while 9.8 % (42) reported ERB approval in their articles; 6.1% (26) articles reported both the ICP and ERB. There are 21 times more chances that authors who report the ERB will also report ICP in their articles when compared to authors who report either ICP or ERB only (OR 21.3, 95% CI 8.5-52.8). Seven journals stated the ethical process reporting in the instructions for authors. Overall, 15.7% articles declared the conflicts of interests. CONCLUSIONS: The low compliance of reporting ethical protection measures in dental research among Indian dental journals is of high concern.