This Article  • References  • Full text PDF  • Send to a friend  • Save in My Folder  • Save to citation manager  • Permissions  Citing Articles  • Contact me when this article is cited  Related Content  • Similar articles in JAMA  Social Bookmarking   What's this?

Carin M. Olson, MD; Kathleen A. Jobe, MD
University of Washington Medical Center Seattle

JAMA. 1997;278(6):477.

	Since this article does not have an abstract, we have provided the first 150 words of the full text PDF and any section headings.

To the Editor.

—The articles by Drs Amdur and Biddle¹ and Dr Rennie and Ms Yank² highlight the importance of documenting ethical conduct of research on humans.

We compared their findings with those from our review³ of comparative interventional studies published between 1966 and 1994 involving patients in cardiopulmonary arrest. Among 47 studies meeting our inclusion criteria, 24 (51%) mentioned approval by an institutional review board (IRB) and 12 (26%) mentioned subjects' consent. The 53 prospective studies on humans recently published in 5 general medical journals described by Rennie and Yank² did better: 42% recorded IRB approval, 53% recorded consent, and 32% recorded both (ie, 74% recorded IRB approval and 85% recorded informed consent).

However, some of this difference is due to better reporting over time. In our series,³ significantly more studies documented IRB approval and consent during more recent years. For example, all studies . . . [Full Text PDF of this Article]

CiteULike    Connotea    Del.icio.us    Digg    Reddit    Technorati    Twitter     What's this?