Skip to main content

Table 3 Ethics-related issues reporting

From: Ethics reporting practices in randomized controlled trials of physical therapy interventions after stroke

Year

2004 (n = 13)

2009 (n = 28)

2014 (n = 39)

p

All studies (n = 80)

Ethic committee study approval

9 (69.2)

23 (82.1)

33 (84.6)

.470b

65 (81.2)

Details about ethic committee

6 (46.2)

13 (46.4)

22 (56.4)

.667c

41 (51.2)

Consent

11 (84.6)

26 (92.9)

37 (94.9)

.443b

74 (92.5)

Details about the consent process

4 (30.8)

16 (57.1)

22 (56.4)

.245b

42 (52.5)

Assessment of reduced cognitive competence

3 (23.1)

18 (64.3)

20 (51.3)

.049b

41 (51.2)

Incentives or compensation, and details

0 (0.0)

0 (0.0)

3 (7.7)

.278b

3 (3.8)

Funders and details

10 (76.9)

20 (71.4)

26 (66.7)

.848b

56 (70.0)

Potential conflicts of interest

3 (23.1)

8 (28.6)

30 (76.9)

<.001b

41 (51.2)

Statement about sample size estimates

5 (38.5)

8 (28.6)

17 (43.6)

.455c

30 (37.5)

Performing of power calculations

5 (38.5)

7 (25.0)

15 (38.5)

.478c

27 (33.8)

Appropriateness of comparators

10 (76.9)

24 (85.7)

34 (87.2)

.638b

68 (85.0)

Matching of comparators

11 (84.6)

19 (67.9)

30 (76.9)

.509b

60 (75.0)

Potential harm for participants

1 (7.7)

6 (21.4)

10 (25.6)

.470b

17 (21.2)

Reporting presence/absence of adverse events

4 (30.8)

7 (25.0)

20 (51.3)

.081b

31 (38.8)

Accordance with the Helsinki declaration.

0 (0.0)

3 (10.7)

6 (15.4)

.403b

9 (11.2)

Number of ethics-related issues reporteda

7.5 (1.6)

8.5 (2.3)

9.9 (2.9)

.009d

9.0 (2.6)

  1. Data are presented as absolute frequencies (percentages) except a mean (standard deviation)
  2. b Fisher exact test, c Pearson χ2 test, d one-way ANOVA