OBJECTIVE: To assess the quality of reporting of research ethics in published clinical research that involves a particularly vulnerable population: nursing home residents. DESIGN: A structured review of publications researched from 1992 to 1996 that involve nursing home residents. The review instrument assessed each publication's compliance with four common standards for research that involves nursing home residents or the cognitively impaired: justification of the use of nursing home residents, Institutional Review Board (IRB) review, nursing home committee review, and informed consent. For each publication, these results were summed into a quality score. The research ethics requirements contained in the journals' instructions for authors that corresponded with each publication were categorized in order to compare whether an association exists between the average quality score for each category and the detail of its research ethics instructions. RESULTS: Forty-five publications were identified. The four quality measures of research ethics showed that (1) all 45 publications reported justification of use of nursing home residents, (2) 36 publications reported that informed consent was obtained or waived, (3) 18 publications reported IRB review, and (4) six publications reported nursing home committee review. Of the 35 publications reporting informed consent was obtained, 16 reported assessing subjects' decisional capacity, and 24 reported whether cognitively impaired subjects were included (19) or excluded (5). The research ethics requirements of each publication's instructions for authors ranked it in one of four categories: (A) None (9); (B) Less than "Uniform Requirements (UR) for Manuscripts Submitted to Biomedical Journals" (7); (C) UR (24); (D) UR plus Additional Instructions (5). A positive association exists between the detail of a research ethics instructions category and the average research ethics quality score for each category (Kruskal-Wallis chi2 = 11.2, P = .01). That is, the more detailed the instructions, the greater the quality score. CONCLUSION: In publications of research that involves nursing home residents, basic standards of research ethics are not typically reported. However, the positive association between research ethics instructions category and research ethics quality score suggests that a journal's instructions for authors or other features of peer review and editing can affect the quality of reporting research ethics.
OBJECTIVE: To assess the quality of reporting of research ethics in published clinical research that involves a particularly vulnerable population: nursing home residents. DESIGN: A structured review of publications researched from 1992 to 1996 that involve nursing home residents. The review instrument assessed each publication's compliance with four common standards for research that involves nursing home residents or the cognitively impaired: justification of the use of nursing home residents, Institutional Review Board (IRB) review, nursing home committee review, and informed consent. For each publication, these results were summed into a quality score. The research ethics requirements contained in the journals' instructions for authors that corresponded with each publication were categorized in order to compare whether an association exists between the average quality score for each category and the detail of its research ethics instructions. RESULTS: Forty-five publications were identified. The four quality measures of research ethics showed that (1) all 45 publications reported justification of use of nursing home residents, (2) 36 publications reported that informed consent was obtained or waived, (3) 18 publications reported IRB review, and (4) six publications reported nursing home committee review. Of the 35 publications reporting informed consent was obtained, 16 reported assessing subjects' decisional capacity, and 24 reported whether cognitively impaired subjects were included (19) or excluded (5). The research ethics requirements of each publication's instructions for authors ranked it in one of four categories: (A) None (9); (B) Less than "Uniform Requirements (UR) for Manuscripts Submitted to Biomedical Journals" (7); (C) UR (24); (D) UR plus Additional Instructions (5). A positive association exists between the detail of a research ethics instructions category and the average research ethics quality score for each category (Kruskal-Wallis chi2 = 11.2, P = .01). That is, the more detailed the instructions, the greater the quality score. CONCLUSION: In publications of research that involves nursing home residents, basic standards of research ethics are not typically reported. However, the positive association between research ethics instructions category and research ethics quality score suggests that a journal's instructions for authors or other features of peer review and editing can affect the quality of reporting research ethics.
Authors: M Ruiz-Canela; J de Irala-Estevez; M A Martínez-González; E Gómez-Gracia; J Fernández-Crehuet Journal: J Med Ethics Date: 2001-06 Impact factor: 2.903
Authors: Stuart G Nicholls; Kelly Carroll; Hayden P Nix; Fan Li; Spencer Phillips Hey; Susan L Mitchell; Charles Weijer; Monica Taljaard Journal: Alzheimers Dement (N Y) Date: 2022-05-02