A journal faces a complex ethical dilemma upon receiving a manuscript detailing secondary analysis of existing medical records. Despite no indication of ethics approval from a recognized review board or informed consent from participants, the authors assert that patient data were anonymized, securely stored, and analyzed without direct harm or unnecessary risk to individuals.
COPE (Committee on Publication Ethics) Advice:
-
Data Set Size: The editors should evaluate the size of the dataset to assess the risk of individual identification, particularly if small and potentially more identifiable.
-
Data Collection Context: Consider where and why the data were collected, as identifiable locations or unique purposes could heighten the risk of patient identification.
-
Oversight Committee: Determine why the study lacked institutional review board approval and whether an appropriate oversight committee was available.
-
Original Study Approval: Investigate whether the original study underwent institutional review board approval and its associated conditions.
-
Previous Publications: Assess whether previous publications of the original or secondary analyses noted any approvals, providing valuable context for decision-making.
The editors should engage with the authors to obtain answers to these questions and explore the possibility of retroactive approval. If the original study had institutional review board approval, it would inform the decision-making process.
While rejecting the article may not address the ethical concerns adequately, retroactive approval and thorough consideration of the issues raised are crucial. Ultimately, institutional review board approval is essential in research involving human subjects, regardless of perceived risk. Decisions should prioritize ethical integrity and thorough discussion within the editorial committee based on all available information.