title: Inadequate reporting of research ethics review and informed consent in cluster randomised trials: review of random sample of published trials.
abstract: OBJECTIVE
  To investigate the extent to which authors of cluster randomised trials adhered to two basic requirements of the World Medical Association's Declaration of Helsinki and the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors' uniform requirements for manuscripts (namely, reporting of research ethics review and informed consent), to determine whether the adequacy of reporting has improved over time, and to identify characteristics of cluster randomised trials associated with reporting of ethics practices.
  
  
  METHODS
  Review of a random sample of published cluster randomised trials from an electronic search in Medline.
  
  
  METHODS
  Cluster randomised trials in health research published in English language journals from 2000 to 2008. Study sample 300 cluster randomised trials published in 150 journals.
  
  
  RESULTS
  77 (26%, 95% confidence interval 21% to 31%) trials failed to report ethics review. The proportion reporting ethics review increased significantly over time (P<0.001). Trials with data collection interventions at the individual level were more likely to report ethics review than were trials that used routine data sources only (79% (n=151) v 55% (23); P=0.008). Trials that accounted for clustering in the design and analysis were more likely to report ethics review. The median impact factor of the journal of publication was higher for trials that reported ethics review (3.4 v 2.3; P<0.001). 93 (31%, 26% to 36%) trials failed to report consent. Reporting of consent increased significantly over time (P<0.001). Trials with interventions targeting participants at the individual level were more likely to report consent than were trials with interventions targeting the cluster level (87% (90) v 48% (41); P<0.001). Trials with data collection interventions at the individual level were more likely to report consent than were those that used routine data sources only (78% (146) v 29% (11); P<0.001).
  
  
  CONCLUSIONS
  Reporting of research ethics protections in cluster randomised trials is inadequate. In addition to research ethics approval, authors should report whether informed consent was sought, from whom consent was sought, and what consent was for.
authors.affiliation: Clinical Epidemiology Program, Ottawa Hospital Research Institute, Ottawa Hospital, Civic Campus, 1053 Carling Avenue, Ottawa, ON, Canada K1Y 4E9. mtaljaard@ohri.ca
authors.forename: Monica
authors.initials: M
authors.lastname: Taljaard
authors.forename: Andrew D
authors.initials: AD
authors.lastname: McRae
authors.forename: Charles
authors.initials: C
authors.lastname: Weijer
authors.forename: Carol
authors.initials: C
authors.lastname: Bennett
authors.forename: Stephanie
authors.initials: S
authors.lastname: Dixon
authors.forename: Julia
authors.initials: J
authors.lastname: Taleban
authors.forename: Zoe
authors.initials: Z
authors.lastname: Skea
authors.forename: Martin P
authors.initials: MP
authors.lastname: Eccles
authors.forename: Jamie C
authors.initials: JC
authors.lastname: Brehaut
authors.forename: Allan
authors.initials: A
authors.lastname: Donner
authors.forename: Raphael
authors.initials: R
authors.lastname: Saginur
authors.forename: Robert F
authors.initials: RF
authors.lastname: Boruch
authors.forename: Jeremy M
authors.initials: JM
authors.lastname: Grimshaw
mesh_terms: D016000:Cluster Analysis; D032984:Ethics, Research; D007258:Informed Consent / Q000941:ethics*; D055811:Journal Impact Factor; D016032:Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic / Q000941:ethics*; D012107:Research Design