Cited by 102Meta-analysis and systematic reviewsEthics in Clinical ResearchAcademic integrity and plagiarism

Ethics in systematic reviews

Vergnes, Jean-Noel, Marchal-Sixou, Christine, Nabet, Cathy, Maret, Delphine, Hamel, Olivier·2010·Journal of Medical Ethics

Abstract

Since its introduction by the Nuremberg Code and the Declaration of Helsinki, the place held by ethics in biomedical research has been continuously increasing in importance. The past 30 years have also seen exponential growth in the number of biomedical articles published. A systematic review of the literature is the scientific way of synthesising a plethora of information, by exhaustively searching out and objectively analysing the studies dealing with a given issue. However, the question of ethics in systematic reviews is rarely touched upon. This could lead to some drawbacks, as systematic reviews may contain studies with ethical insufficiencies, may be a possible way to publish unethical research and may also be prone to conflict of interest. Finally, informed consent given for an original study is not necessarily still valid at the systematic review level. There is no doubt that routine ethical assessment in systematic reviews would help to improve the ethical and methodological quality of studies in general. However, ethical issues change so much with time and location, and are so broad in scope and in context that it appears illusory to search for a universal, internationally accepted standard for ethical assessment in systematic reviews. Some simple suggestions could nevertheless be drawn from the present reflection and are discussed in the paper.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1136/jme.2010.039941

Cites

21 of 21 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Vergnes, J.-N., Marchal-Sixou, C., Nabet, C., Maret, D., & Hamel, O.
Affiliations
Université Toulouse III - Paul Sabatier (FR)
Venue
Journal of Medical Ethics
Publisher
BMJ
Published
2010-10-15
Volume
36
Issue
12
Pages
771-774
ISSN
  • 0306-6800 (ISSN-L)
  • 1473-4257
OpenAlex
W2149106853
Cited by
102
References
20
Citations by year
2026: 7 · 2025: 16 · 2024: 11 · 2023: 10 · 2022: 14 · 2021: 6 · 2020: 8 · 2019: 7 · 2018: 5 · 2017: 1 · 2016: 6 · 2015: 2 · 2014: 6 · 2013: 1 · 2012: 1
FWCI
0.27
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Journal of Medical Ethics (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • HAL (submittedVersion)
  • HighWire Press Open Archive (submittedVersion)
  • DigitalGeorgetown (Georgetown University Library) (submittedVersion)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Decision Sciences › Statistics, Probability and Uncertainty › Meta-analysis and systematic reviews
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Public Health, Environmental and Occupational Health › Ethics in Clinical Research
  • Social Sciences › Safety Research › Academic integrity and plagiarism
Keywords
ethical assessment, informed consent, conflicts of interest, Nuremberg Code, Declaration of Helsinki, research ethics guidelines, methodological quality
MeSH terms
Humans, Informed Consent, Review Literature as Topic, Ethics, Research, Biomedical Research

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review