REPORTING APPROVAL BY RESEARCH ETHICS COMMITTEES AND SUBJECTS CONSENTIN HUMAN RESUSCITATION RESEARCH

Objective: To determine how frequently reports of research in human ca rdiopulmonary resuscitation mention approval by a research ethics comm ittee and address subjects' consent. Methods: Retrospective review of published reports of interventional research in human cardiopulmonary resuscitation. Reports were retrieved from the MEDLINE database and se lected according to pre-established criteria. Data were abstracted ind ependently by the two authors with differences resolved by mutual agre ement. Results were analyzed according to whether the research took pl ace in the prehospital setting, the emergency department, or the hospi tal; whether it was conducted within or outside the United States; whe ther it received any funding from the US government; its randomization scheme; the year of publication; and whether the journal's instructio ns required mention of REC approval or subjects' consent. Results: Rep orts of 47 studies met our criteria for inclusion. Of these, 24 (51%) mentioned approval by a research ethics committee and 12 (26%) address ed subjects' consent. Significantly more studies reported ethics commi ttee approval or addressed consent during more recent years. Authors w ere more likely to report consent, REC approval, or both when journal instructions required that REC approval be mentioned. Conclusion: Repo rts of resuscitation research have not consistently mentioned approval from a research ethics committee or addressed subjects' consent for i nterventional studies using human subjects. However, they are doing so more frequently in recent years as journal requirements for reporting change. REC approval is now almost always being reported, but subject s' consent is often not addressed. Journal editors and reviewers shoul d ensure that authors adhere to the journal's instructions about repor ting ethical conduct of experiments.