MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4411363529 · doi:10.1186/s41073-025-00166-y

Gaps in the Ottawa Statement on the Ethical Design and Conduct of Cluster Randomized Trials: a citation analysis reveals a need for updated ethics guidelines

2025· article· en· W4411363529 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.
fundA Canadian funder is recorded on the work.
aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.

Bibliographic record

VenueResearch Integrity and Peer Review · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicEthics in Clinical Research
Canadian institutionsBruyèrePublic Health OntarioSt. Joseph’s Healthcare HamiltonUniversité de MontréalCentre Hospitalier de l’Université de MontréalMcMaster UniversityWestern UniversityUniversity of TorontoUniversity Health NetworkOttawa HospitalUniversity of Ottawa
FundersCanadian Institutes of Health Research
KeywordsStatement (logic)CitationCluster (spacecraft)Randomized controlled trialResearch ethicsEngineering ethicsPolitical sciencePsychologyLibrary scienceMedicineLawEngineeringComputer science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Although commonly used to evaluate health interventions, cluster randomized trials raise difficult ethical issues. Recognizing this, the Ottawa Statement on the Ethical Design and Conduct of Cluster Randomized Trials, published in 2012, provides 15 recommendations to address ethical issues across seven domains. But due to several developments in the design and implementation of cluster randomized trials, there are new issues requiring guidance. To inform the forthcoming update of the Ottawa Statement, we aimed to identify any gaps in the Ottawa Statement discussed within the literature. METHODS: We searched Google Scholar, Scopus, and Web of Science using the 'cited by' function on 11 November 2022.We included all types of publications, including articles, book chapters, commentaries, editorials, ethics guidelines, theses and trial-related publications (i.e., primary reports, protocols, and secondary analyses), that cited and engaged with the Ottawa Statement, the Ottawa Statement précis, or one or more of its four background papers. Data were extracted by four reviewers working in rotating pairs. Reviewers captured relevant text verbatim and recorded whether it reflected a gap relating to one or more of the Ottawa Statement domains. Using a thematic analysis approach, semantic coding was used to summarize the content of the data into distinct gaps within the Ottawa Statement domains, which was subsequently expanded in an inductive manner through discussion. RESULTS: The qualitative analysis of the text from 53 articles resulted in the identification of 24 distinct gaps in the Ottawa Statement: 4 gaps about justifying the cluster randomized design; 2 gaps about research ethics committee review; 3 gaps about identifying research participants; 4 gaps about obtaining informed consent; 3 gaps about gatekepeers; 6 gaps about assessing benefits and harms; 1 gap about protecting vulnerable participants; and 1 gap about equity-related issues in cluster randomized trials. CONCLUSION: Identifying 24 gaps reveals a need to update the Ottawa Statement. Alongside additional gaps identified in ongoing empirical work and through engagement with our patient and public partners, the gaps identified through this citation analysis should be considered in the forthcoming Ottawa Statement update.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.695
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.864
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch, Research integrity
Consensus categoriesMetaresearch
DomainCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: Theoretical or conceptual
GenreCandidate signal: Commentary · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.853
Threshold uncertainty score0.992

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.6950.864
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.002
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0010.010
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.907
GPT teacher head0.727
Teacher spread0.180 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it