Compliance with ethical standards in the reporting of donor sources and ethics review in peer-reviewed publications involving organ transplantation in China: a scoping review
Objectives The objective of this study is to investigate whether papers reporting research on Chinese transplant recipients comply with international professional standards aimed at excluding publication of research that: (1) involves any biological material from executed prisoners; (2) lacks Instit...
Saved in:
| Main Authors: | , , , , , , |
|---|---|
| Format: | Article |
| Language: | English |
| Published: |
BMJ Publishing Group
2019-02-01
|
| Series: | BMJ Open |
| Online Access: | https://bmjopen.bmj.com/content/9/2/e024473.full |
| Tags: |
Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
|
| _version_ | 1832540899679141888 |
|---|---|
| author | Angela Ballantyne Wendy Rogers Matthew P Robertson Brette Blakely Ruby Catsanos Robyn Clay-Williams Maria Fiatarone Singh |
| author_facet | Angela Ballantyne Wendy Rogers Matthew P Robertson Brette Blakely Ruby Catsanos Robyn Clay-Williams Maria Fiatarone Singh |
| author_sort | Angela Ballantyne |
| collection | DOAJ |
| description | Objectives The objective of this study is to investigate whether papers reporting research on Chinese transplant recipients comply with international professional standards aimed at excluding publication of research that: (1) involves any biological material from executed prisoners; (2) lacks Institutional Review Board (IRB) approval and (3) lacks consent of donors.Design Scoping review based on Arksey and O’Mallee’s methodological framework.Data sources Medline, Scopus and Embase were searched from January 2000 to April 2017.Eligibility criteria We included research papers published in peer-reviewed English-language journals reporting on outcomes of research involving recipients of transplanted hearts, livers or lungs in mainland China.Data extraction and synthesis Data were extracted by individual authors working independently following training and benchmarking. Descriptive statistics were compiled using Excel.Results 445 included studies reported on outcomes of 85 477 transplants. 412 (92.5%) failed to report whether or not organs were sourced from executed prisoners; and 439 (99%) failed to report that organ sources gave consent for transplantation. In contrast, 324 (73%) reported approval from an IRB. Of the papers claiming that no prisoners’ organs were involved in the transplants, 19 of them involved 2688 transplants that took place prior to 2010, when there was no volunteer donor programme in China.Discussion The transplant research community has failed to implement ethical standards banning publication of research using material from executed prisoners. As a result, a large body of unethical research now exists, raising issues of complicity and moral hazard to the extent that the transplant community uses and benefits from the results of this research. We call for retraction of this literature pending investigation of individual papers. |
| format | Article |
| id | doaj-art-6f91635691fe4ee085969d3c129919a1 |
| institution | Kabale University |
| issn | 2044-6055 |
| language | English |
| publishDate | 2019-02-01 |
| publisher | BMJ Publishing Group |
| record_format | Article |
| series | BMJ Open |
| spelling | doaj-art-6f91635691fe4ee085969d3c129919a12025-02-04T12:35:10ZengBMJ Publishing GroupBMJ Open2044-60552019-02-019210.1136/bmjopen-2018-024473Compliance with ethical standards in the reporting of donor sources and ethics review in peer-reviewed publications involving organ transplantation in China: a scoping reviewAngela Ballantyne0Wendy Rogers1Matthew P Robertson2Brette Blakely3Ruby Catsanos4Robyn Clay-Williams5Maria Fiatarone Singh61 Primary Health Care and General Practice, University of Otago Wellington, Wellington, New ZealandDepartment of Philosophy, Macquarie University, Sydney, New South Wales, Australia3 Human Rights Law Foundation, New York, USAAustralian Institute of Health Innovation, Macquarie University, Sydney, New South Wales, Australia6 No institutional affiliation, Sydney, Australia7 Australian Institute of Health Innovation, Macquarie University, Sydney, New South Wales, AustraliaFaculty of Medicine and Health, The University of Sydney, Sydney, New South Wales, AustraliaObjectives The objective of this study is to investigate whether papers reporting research on Chinese transplant recipients comply with international professional standards aimed at excluding publication of research that: (1) involves any biological material from executed prisoners; (2) lacks Institutional Review Board (IRB) approval and (3) lacks consent of donors.Design Scoping review based on Arksey and O’Mallee’s methodological framework.Data sources Medline, Scopus and Embase were searched from January 2000 to April 2017.Eligibility criteria We included research papers published in peer-reviewed English-language journals reporting on outcomes of research involving recipients of transplanted hearts, livers or lungs in mainland China.Data extraction and synthesis Data were extracted by individual authors working independently following training and benchmarking. Descriptive statistics were compiled using Excel.Results 445 included studies reported on outcomes of 85 477 transplants. 412 (92.5%) failed to report whether or not organs were sourced from executed prisoners; and 439 (99%) failed to report that organ sources gave consent for transplantation. In contrast, 324 (73%) reported approval from an IRB. Of the papers claiming that no prisoners’ organs were involved in the transplants, 19 of them involved 2688 transplants that took place prior to 2010, when there was no volunteer donor programme in China.Discussion The transplant research community has failed to implement ethical standards banning publication of research using material from executed prisoners. As a result, a large body of unethical research now exists, raising issues of complicity and moral hazard to the extent that the transplant community uses and benefits from the results of this research. We call for retraction of this literature pending investigation of individual papers.https://bmjopen.bmj.com/content/9/2/e024473.full |
| spellingShingle | Angela Ballantyne Wendy Rogers Matthew P Robertson Brette Blakely Ruby Catsanos Robyn Clay-Williams Maria Fiatarone Singh Compliance with ethical standards in the reporting of donor sources and ethics review in peer-reviewed publications involving organ transplantation in China: a scoping review BMJ Open |
| title | Compliance with ethical standards in the reporting of donor sources and ethics review in peer-reviewed publications involving organ transplantation in China: a scoping review |
| title_full | Compliance with ethical standards in the reporting of donor sources and ethics review in peer-reviewed publications involving organ transplantation in China: a scoping review |
| title_fullStr | Compliance with ethical standards in the reporting of donor sources and ethics review in peer-reviewed publications involving organ transplantation in China: a scoping review |
| title_full_unstemmed | Compliance with ethical standards in the reporting of donor sources and ethics review in peer-reviewed publications involving organ transplantation in China: a scoping review |
| title_short | Compliance with ethical standards in the reporting of donor sources and ethics review in peer-reviewed publications involving organ transplantation in China: a scoping review |
| title_sort | compliance with ethical standards in the reporting of donor sources and ethics review in peer reviewed publications involving organ transplantation in china a scoping review |
| url | https://bmjopen.bmj.com/content/9/2/e024473.full |
| work_keys_str_mv | AT angelaballantyne compliancewithethicalstandardsinthereportingofdonorsourcesandethicsreviewinpeerreviewedpublicationsinvolvingorgantransplantationinchinaascopingreview AT wendyrogers compliancewithethicalstandardsinthereportingofdonorsourcesandethicsreviewinpeerreviewedpublicationsinvolvingorgantransplantationinchinaascopingreview AT matthewprobertson compliancewithethicalstandardsinthereportingofdonorsourcesandethicsreviewinpeerreviewedpublicationsinvolvingorgantransplantationinchinaascopingreview AT bretteblakely compliancewithethicalstandardsinthereportingofdonorsourcesandethicsreviewinpeerreviewedpublicationsinvolvingorgantransplantationinchinaascopingreview AT rubycatsanos compliancewithethicalstandardsinthereportingofdonorsourcesandethicsreviewinpeerreviewedpublicationsinvolvingorgantransplantationinchinaascopingreview AT robynclaywilliams compliancewithethicalstandardsinthereportingofdonorsourcesandethicsreviewinpeerreviewedpublicationsinvolvingorgantransplantationinchinaascopingreview AT mariafiataronesingh compliancewithethicalstandardsinthereportingofdonorsourcesandethicsreviewinpeerreviewedpublicationsinvolvingorgantransplantationinchinaascopingreview |