Analysis of medical ethical review in Chinese Journal of Endemiology in 2013-2016
10.3760/cma.j.issn.2095-4255.2018.01.017
- VernacularTitle:2013-2016年《中华地方病学杂志》中的医学伦理审查结果分析
- Author:
Shifei WU
1
;
Miao HE
;
Ying LI
Author Information
1. 哈尔滨医科大学人文社会学院医学伦理学教研室
- Keywords:
Medical ethics;
Review;
Endemiology;
Scientific research and prevention;
Analysis
- From:
Chinese Journal of Endemiology
2018;37(1):77-82
- CountryChina
- Language:Chinese
-
Abstract:
Objective To understand the review situation of medical ethics in scientific research and prevention and control of endemic diseases,raise awareness of ethical review,and to promote rapid and healthy development in scientific research for control of endemic diseases.Methods The method of retrospective analysis was used,articles on original articles,field epidemiological investigations and clinical medicines published by Chinese Journal of Endemiology from 2013 to 2016 were collected.Examination of medical ethics in national,provincial and municipal fund programs and non fund projects was carried out.Statistical analysis was performed using Cochran-Armitage trend test and Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test.Results A total of 642 articles were collected from 2013 to 2016 and 25 articles were excluded.①The total number of papers published after medical ethics review was in a upward trend,the difference was statistically significant in trend test (Z =4.84,P ＜0.01);and the papers were increased from 14.8％ (20/135) in 2013 to 38.2％ (66/173) in 2016 and compared among different years,the differences were statistically significant (x2 =23.43,P ＜ 0.01).The papers of original articles and field epidemiological investigations published were in a upward trend,the difference was statistically significant in trend test (Z =4.32,2.14,P ＜ 0.01 or ＜ 0.05);and the papers were increased from 12.3％ (7/57),13.2％ (9/68) in 2013 to 48.6％ (36/74),27.3％ (24/88) in 2016 and compared among different years,the differences were statistically significant (x2 =18.61,4.57,P ＜ 0.01 or ＜ 0.05).②The total number of papers published which was supported by various fund programs that had past the medical ethical review was in a upward trend,the difference was statistically significant in trend test (Z =5.27,P ＜ 0.01);and the papers were increased from 13.3％ (14/105)in 2013 to 42.4％ (53/125) in 2016,compared among different years,the differences were statistically significant (x2 =27.69,P ＜ 0.01).The total number of papers published in the national,provincial programs was in a upward trend,the difference was statistically significant in the trend test (Z =4.14,3.21,P ＜ 0.01);and the papers were increased from 16.0％ (8/50),10.0％ (5/50) in 2013 to 51.7％ (31/60),32.7％ (17/52) in 2016,compared among different years,the differences were statistically significant (x2 =17.05,10.27,P ＜ 0.01).③The total number of papers published and approved or marked with approval numbers by the ethics committee was in a upward trend,the difference was statistically significant in trend test (Z =5.74,5.44,P ＜ 0.01);and the papers were increased from 0.7％ (1/135),0 (0/135) in 2013 to 21.4％ (37/173),11.0％ (19/173) in 2016,compared among different years,the differences were statistically significant (x2 =32.90,29.55,P ＜ 0.01).④The total number of papers published with informed consent or signed was in a upward trend,the difference was statistically significant in trend test (Z =2.56,2.14,P ＜ 0.05);and the papers were increased from 15.6％ (21/135),4.4％ (6/135) in 2013 to 26.6％ (46/173),11.0％(19/173) in 2016,compared among different years,the differences were statistically significant (x2 =6.54,4.60,P ＜ 0.05).Conclusions Medical ethical review is more and more widely used in scientific research and prevention and control of endemic diseases;scientific research workers attach great importance to the ethics review of research projects.However,there are still omissions and missing reports in some projects and articles.The editorial department and editors need to guide the author to raise the author's understanding of the importance of ethical review.
