The DOI matches its Crossref record; 21 of the 21 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Ethics in systematic reviews
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.
Overview
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
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?
In the citing paper
“Systematic reviews potentially present two ethical challenges. First, informed consent provided for the original study is not necessarily valid for inclusion of data in the systematic review. Second, systematic reviews may include studies with ethical insufficiencies.105”
Citations
Cites
Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses: the PRISMA statement
Moher, D., Liberati, A., Tetzlaff, J., Altman, D. G., & for the PRISMA Group (2009) · BMJ · doi:10.1136/bmj.b2535 · Cited by 83,823
Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: the PRISMA Statement.
(2009) · PubMed Central · Cited by 44,859
Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions: Cochrane Book Series
(2008) · doi:10.1002/9780470712184 · Cited by 25,048
Meta-analysis of Observational Studies in Epidemiology<SUBTITLE>A Proposal for Reporting</SUBTITLE>
Stroup, D. F. (2000) · JAMA · doi:10.1001/jama.283.15.2008 · Cited by 20,623
Elm, E. V., Altman, D. G., Egger, M., Pocock, S. J., Gøtzsche, P. C., & Vandenbroucke, J. P. (2007) · BMJ · doi:10.1136/bmj.39335.541782.ad · Cited by 10,766
Moher, D., Hopewell, S., Schulz, K. F., Montori, V., Gotzsche, P. C., Devereaux, P. J., Elbourne, D., Egger, M., & Altman, D. G. (2010) · BMJ · doi:10.1136/bmj.c869 · Cited by 8,883
Towards complete and accurate reporting of studies of diagnostic accuracy: The STARD Initiative.
Bossuyt, P. M., Reitsma, J. B., Bruns, D. E., Gatsonis, C. A., Glasziou, P. P., Irwig, L. M., Lijmer, J. G., Moher, D., Rennie, D., de Vet, H. C. W., et al. (2003) · Annals of Internal Medicine · doi:10.7326/0003-4819-138-1-200301070-00010 · Cited by 3,219
Towards complete and accurate reporting of studies of diagnostic accuracy: the STARD initiative
Bossuyt, P. M., Reitsma, J. B., Bruns, D. E., Gatsonis, C. A., Glasziou, P. P., Irwig, L. M., Lijmer, J. G., Moher, D., Rennie, D., & de Vet, H. C. W. (2003) · BMJ · doi:10.1136/bmj.326.7379.41 · Cited by 3,215
Meta-analysis of individual participant data: rationale, conduct, and reporting
Riley, R. D., Lambert, P. C., & Abo-Zaid, G. (2010) · BMJ · doi:10.1136/bmj.c221 · Cited by 1,701
Enhancing the quality and transparency of health research
Groves, T. (2008) · British medical journal · doi:10.1136/bmj.a718 · Cited by 727
Research works printed but not linked: 2
- National Institutes of Health. Nuremberg Code. Office of Human Subjects Research. Trials of war criminals before the Nuremberg military tribunals under Control Council Law no 10, vol 2, pp 181–182. Washington, DC: US Government Printing Office, 1949. http://ohsr.od.nih.gov/guidelines/nuremberg.html (accessed 26 Aug 2010).
- 10.1001/jama.286.13.1577 · DOI
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Adams, J., Hillier-Brown, F. C., Moore, H. J., Lake, A. A., Araujo-Soares, V., White, M., & Summerbell, C. (2016) · Systematic Reviews · doi:10.1186/s13643-016-0337-y · Cited by 486
“In the meantime, and as has been previously proposed, it may be judicious for researchers proposing to conduct this type of work to at least discuss it informally with their local research ethics committee before proceeding [54].”
BackgroundNeupane, D., McLachlan, C. S., Sharma, R., Gyawali, B., Khanal, V., Mishra, S. R., Christensen, B., & Kallestrup, P. (2014) · Medicine · doi:10.1097/md.0000000000000074 · Cited by 173
“Ethical approval for systematic reviews remains a gray area.(8) We did not seek ethical approval, although we did review each article as to whether ethical approval was obtained; 54% of the articles described institution ethics approval and 54% reported that individual consent was obtained.”
BackgroundMolina, Á. A., Helldén, D., Alfvén, T., Niemi, M., Leander, K., Nordenstedt, H., Rehn, C., Ndejjo, R., Wanyenze, R. K., & Biermann, O. (2023) · Global Health Action · doi:10.1080/16549716.2023.2190649 · Cited by 174
“Also, availability bias, publication bias and reporting bias [93,94] may have skewed the results.”
Publication ethics of human studies in the light of the Declaration of Helsinki – a mini-review
Sawicka‐Gutaj, N., Gruszczyński, D., Guzik, P., Mostowska, A., & Walkowiak, J. (2022) · Journal of Medical Science · doi:10.20883/medical.e700 · Cited by 137
Lubbe, W., ten Ham‐Baloyi, W., & Smit, K. (2020) · Journal of Neonatal Nursing · doi:10.1016/j.jnn.2020.04.006 · Cited by 180
Metadata
- 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 › Education › 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
