• Daniel Pehboeck, Matthias Hohlrieder, Volker Wenzel, and Arnulf Benzer.
• Department of Anesthesia and Intensive Care Medicine, Medical University of Innsbruck, Anichstrasse 35, 6020, Innsbruck, Austria.
• Intensive Care Med. 2009 Apr 1; 35 (4): 713-6.

AbstractTo evaluate the satisfaction of clinical scientists when submitting study drafts to an ethics committee/clinical trials register (CLINICALTRIALS, EUDRACT, ISRCTN) we conducted an online survey of 240 authors publishing in anesthesia/critical care medicine (A) or in major general medical (M) journals from January to December 2007. No statistical difference between groups A and M was seen with regard to the number of studies submitted to ethics committees or registered in various clinical trials registers. On a visual analogue scale (VAS -10 to +10), the subjective evaluation of the effort required to submit a study draft to an ethics committee or enter it in a clinical trials register produced almost only negative grades in both groups. The mean different perceptions ranged from -3.5 to -0.1 in group A and from -4.4 to -0.2 (except for +0.1 and 1.9 in 2 subgroups) in group M. The authors in both groups gave a positive score to the better transparency in scientific research resulting from introduction of the clinical trials registers (+2.4 in group A, +4.8 in group M). The results of our study indicate widespread author dissatisfaction when submitting a clinical trial to ethics committees or clinical trials registers.

8 keywords...

hide…