首页> 外文期刊>European journal of anaesthesiology >Research ethics committee approval as reported for abstracts submitted to the annual Euroanaesthesia meeting
【24h】

Research ethics committee approval as reported for abstracts submitted to the annual Euroanaesthesia meeting

机译:研究伦理委员会批准,据报道,为提交欧洲欧洲欧洲欧洲会议的摘要

获取原文
获取原文并翻译 | 示例
           

摘要

BACKGROUNDThe annual congress of the European Society of Anaesthesiology (ESA) is one of the largest anaesthesia congresses in the world and exhibits more than 1200 abstracts annually.OBJECTIVESThe aims of this study were to quantify the frequency of inadequate evidence of ethical approval for abstracts submitted to the ESA congress and to examine whether abstracts without appropriate ethical approval were subsequently accepted.DESIGN AND SETTINGAll abstracts submitted in 2015 were adjudicated according to European ethical criteria.MAIN OUTCOME MEASUREThe proportion of submitted abstracts that lacked evidence of appropriate ethics committee approval. Secondary outcomes included the proportion of accepted abstract that lacked evidence of appropriate ethical approval; the proportion of correctly identified case reports; the proportion of accepted abstracts that lacked evidence of appropriate ethics committee approvals corresponding to location (within/outside Europe); and the proportion of accepted abstracts that lacked evidence of appropriate ethics committee approvals corresponding to a specific area of research.RESULTSIn total, 1792 abstracts were reviewed and 1572 (87.7%) involved humans. In 527 (29.4%), the authors failed to demonstrate adequate ethical approval with higher rates in abstracts submitted from Europe (32.1%) than the rest of the world (23.5%), P<0.001. Appropriate approvals were reported in 80% of animal studies, 74.6% of case reports and 57.6% of human research studies. The proportion with evidence of adequate ethical approvals was lowest in obstetric anaesthesia and emergency medicine. Case reports were identified correctly 98.6% (347/352) of the time, but 14 research abstracts were assigned wrongly to this category. Most abstracts (68.5%, 361/527) lacking evidence of ethical approval were still accepted for presentation.CONCLUSIONResearch abstracts lacking evidence of appropriate ethical approval are common worldwide. Societies shoulder the responsibility for ensuring that only ethically sound abstracts are presented at meetings. Abstract submission systems must include mechanisms to ensure that publications are accepted and judged not just on scientific merit but also on adherence to best ethical practice.
机译:背景,欧洲麻烦学会(ESA)的年度大会是世界上最大的麻醉国会之一,每年展出超过1200个摘要。该研究的目标是量化旨在为提交的摘要批准的道德批准证据不足的频率随后接受了ESA国会和审查摘要是否被接受了摘要。根据欧洲道德标准,裁决了2015年提交的摘要和塑造摘要.MAIN结果是缺乏适当道德委员会批准证据的提交摘要的比例。二次结果包括所接受的摘要比例缺乏适当道德批准的证据;正确识别案例报告的比例;缺乏对应于地点的适当道德委员会批准的证据(欧洲范围内)的比例;以及缺乏对对应于特定研究领域的适当道德委员会批准证据的摘要的比例。审查了1792年的1792年摘要,1572名(87.7%)涉及人类。在527年(29.4%)中,作者未能表现出足够的道德批准,以欧洲提交的摘要(32.1%)的速度更高(32.1%)(23.5%),p <0.001。据报道,在80%的动物研究中报告了适当的批准,案件报告的74.6%和57.6%的人类研究研究。具有足够道德批准的证据的比例在产科麻醉和急诊药中最低。案例报告被确定为98.6%(347/352)的时间,但是14个研究摘要被错误地分配给此类别。缺乏道德批准证据的大多数摘要(68.5%,361/527)仍被接受呈现.ConclusionSearch摘要缺乏适当道德批准证据的摘要是全世界的共同点。社会承担责任,确保在会议上仅提供道德声音摘要。摘要提交系统必须包括确保接受出版物并判断出版物的机制,而且不仅仅是对最佳道德实践的依从性。

著录项

相似文献

  • 外文文献
  • 中文文献
  • 专利
获取原文

客服邮箱:kefu@zhangqiaokeyan.com

京公网安备:11010802029741号 ICP备案号:京ICP备15016152号-6 六维联合信息科技 (北京) 有限公司©版权所有
  • 客服微信

  • 服务号