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
ObjectivesThe 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 Institu...
Gespeichert in:
| Veröffentlicht in: | BMJ open 2019-02, Vol.9 (2), p.e024473-e024473 |
|---|---|
| Hauptverfasser: | , , , , , , |
| Format: | Artikel |
| Sprache: | eng |
| Schlagworte: | |
| Online-Zugang: | Volltext |
| Tags: |
Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
|
| container_end_page | e024473 |
|---|---|
| container_issue | 2 |
| container_start_page | e024473 |
| container_title | BMJ open |
| container_volume | 9 |
| creator | Rogers, Wendy Robertson, Matthew P Ballantyne, Angela Blakely, Brette Catsanos, Ruby Clay-Williams, Robyn Fiatarone Singh, Maria |
| description | ObjectivesThe 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.DesignScoping review based on Arksey and O’Mallee’s methodological framework.Data sourcesMedline, Scopus and Embase were searched from January 2000 to April 2017.Eligibility criteriaWe 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 synthesisData were extracted by individual authors working independently following training and benchmarking. Descriptive statistics were compiled using Excel.Results445 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.DiscussionThe 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. |
| doi_str_mv | 10.1136/bmjopen-2018-024473 |
| format | Article |
| fullrecord | <record><control><sourceid>proquest_pubme</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_pubmedcentral_primary_oai_pubmedcentral_nih_gov_6377532</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><sourcerecordid>2176127380</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-b472t-94a62d72dc75702b960dc139691ec0d0fe50f621b6f668aca2a1f538d9075b0a3</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNqNkl2L1DAUhoMo7jLuLxAk4I03XfPRJFMvBBn8ggVv9Dqkyek0Q5vUpDPL_il_o-l2XFavLJS29HkfzmlfhF5Sck0pl2_b8RAnCBUjdFsRVteKP0GXjNR1JYkQTx_dX6CrnA-kHLVohGDP0QUnipWTXqJfuzhOgzfBAr71c49h7r01A86zCc4kl7EPeO4BJ5himn3Y49hhF0NMOMdjspBxIddcLtTJw-2SmQBStT6Cw9OxHYp39jEsxlMcTveqtDdFn0zI02DCfA8s6V3vg3mHDc42Tgu5ml6gZ50ZMlydrxv049PH77sv1c23z193H26qtlZsrpraSOYUc1YJRVjbSOIs5Y1sKFjiSAeCdJLRVnZSbo01zNBO8K1riBItMXyD3q_eMvcIzkIoMw56Sn406U5H4_Xfb4Lv9T6etORKCc6K4M1ZkOLPI-RZjz5bGMqSEI9ZM0aI2gpa_tsGvf4HPZTvGsp6mlElKVN8SwrFV8qmmHOC7mEYSvRSCX2uhF4qoddKlNSrx3s8ZP4UoADXK1DS_2X8DUukx0Q</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Open Access Repository</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>2176127380</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><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><source>BMJ Open Access Journals</source><source>MEDLINE</source><source>DOAJ Directory of Open Access Journals</source><source>PubMed Central Open Access</source><source>EZB-FREE-00999 freely available EZB journals</source><source>PubMed Central</source><creator>Rogers, Wendy ; Robertson, Matthew P ; Ballantyne, Angela ; Blakely, Brette ; Catsanos, Ruby ; Clay-Williams, Robyn ; Fiatarone Singh, Maria</creator><creatorcontrib>Rogers, Wendy ; Robertson, Matthew P ; Ballantyne, Angela ; Blakely, Brette ; Catsanos, Ruby ; Clay-Williams, Robyn ; Fiatarone Singh, Maria</creatorcontrib><description>ObjectivesThe 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.DesignScoping review based on Arksey and O’Mallee’s methodological framework.Data sourcesMedline, Scopus and Embase were searched from January 2000 to April 2017.Eligibility criteriaWe 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 synthesisData were extracted by individual authors working independently following training and benchmarking. Descriptive statistics were compiled using Excel.Results445 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.DiscussionThe 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.</description><identifier>ISSN: 2044-6055</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 2044-6055</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.1136/bmjopen-2018-024473</identifier><identifier>PMID: 30723071</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>England: BMJ Publishing Group LTD</publisher><subject>Bans ; Blood & organ donations ; China ; Consent ; Ethical Review ; Ethics ; Guideline Adherence - statistics & numerical data ; Humans ; Liver cancer ; Massacres ; Medical research ; Organ Transplantation - ethics ; Organ Transplantation - standards ; Organ Transplantation - statistics & numerical data ; Peer Review - standards ; Periodicals as Topic - standards ; Periodicals as Topic - statistics & numerical data ; Researchers ; Sanctions ; Systematic review ; Tissue Donors - ethics ; Transplants & implants</subject><ispartof>BMJ open, 2019-02, Vol.9 (2), p.e024473-e024473</ispartof><rights>Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2019. Re-use permitted under CC BY-NC. No commercial re-use. See rights and permissions. Published by BMJ.</rights><rights>2019 Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2019. Re-use permitted under CC BY-NC. No commercial re-use. See rights and permissions. Published by BMJ. This is an open access article distributed in accordance with the Creative Commons Attribution Non Commercial (CC BY-NC 4.0) license, which permits others to distribute, remix, adapt, build upon this work non-commercially, and license their derivative works on different terms, provided the original work is properly cited, appropriate credit is given, any changes made indicated, and the use is non-commercial. See: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/ . Notwithstanding the ProQuest Terms and Conditions, you may use this content in accordance with the terms of the License.</rights><rights>Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2019. Re-use permitted under CC BY-NC. No commercial re-use. See rights and permissions. Published by BMJ. 2019</rights><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><oa>free_for_read</oa><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed><citedby>FETCH-LOGICAL-b472t-94a62d72dc75702b960dc139691ec0d0fe50f621b6f668aca2a1f538d9075b0a3</citedby><cites>FETCH-LOGICAL-b472t-94a62d72dc75702b960dc139691ec0d0fe50f621b6f668aca2a1f538d9075b0a3</cites><orcidid>0000-0001-9186-870X ; 0000-0002-6107-7445</orcidid></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><linktopdf>$$Uhttps://bmjopen.bmj.com/content/9/2/e024473.full.pdf$$EPDF$$P50$$Gbmj$$Hfree_for_read</linktopdf><linktohtml>$$Uhttps://bmjopen.bmj.com/content/9/2/e024473.full$$EHTML$$P50$$Gbmj$$Hfree_for_read</linktohtml><link.rule.ids>230,314,727,780,784,864,885,27549,27550,27924,27925,53791,53793,77601,77632</link.rule.ids><backlink>$$Uhttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/30723071$$D View this record in MEDLINE/PubMed$$Hfree_for_read</backlink></links><search><creatorcontrib>Rogers, Wendy</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Robertson, Matthew P</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Ballantyne, Angela</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Blakely, Brette</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Catsanos, Ruby</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Clay-Williams, Robyn</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Fiatarone Singh, Maria</creatorcontrib><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><title>BMJ open</title><addtitle>BMJ Open</addtitle><description>ObjectivesThe 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.DesignScoping review based on Arksey and O’Mallee’s methodological framework.Data sourcesMedline, Scopus and Embase were searched from January 2000 to April 2017.Eligibility criteriaWe 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 synthesisData were extracted by individual authors working independently following training and benchmarking. Descriptive statistics were compiled using Excel.Results445 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.DiscussionThe 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.</description><subject>Bans</subject><subject>Blood & organ donations</subject><subject>China</subject><subject>Consent</subject><subject>Ethical Review</subject><subject>Ethics</subject><subject>Guideline Adherence - statistics & numerical data</subject><subject>Humans</subject><subject>Liver cancer</subject><subject>Massacres</subject><subject>Medical research</subject><subject>Organ Transplantation - ethics</subject><subject>Organ Transplantation - standards</subject><subject>Organ Transplantation - statistics & numerical data</subject><subject>Peer Review - standards</subject><subject>Periodicals as Topic - standards</subject><subject>Periodicals as Topic - statistics & numerical data</subject><subject>Researchers</subject><subject>Sanctions</subject><subject>Systematic review</subject><subject>Tissue Donors - ethics</subject><subject>Transplants & implants</subject><issn>2044-6055</issn><issn>2044-6055</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>2019</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><sourceid>9YT</sourceid><sourceid>ACMMV</sourceid><sourceid>EIF</sourceid><sourceid>ABUWG</sourceid><sourceid>AFKRA</sourceid><sourceid>AZQEC</sourceid><sourceid>BENPR</sourceid><sourceid>CCPQU</sourceid><sourceid>DWQXO</sourceid><sourceid>GNUQQ</sourceid><recordid>eNqNkl2L1DAUhoMo7jLuLxAk4I03XfPRJFMvBBn8ggVv9Dqkyek0Q5vUpDPL_il_o-l2XFavLJS29HkfzmlfhF5Sck0pl2_b8RAnCBUjdFsRVteKP0GXjNR1JYkQTx_dX6CrnA-kHLVohGDP0QUnipWTXqJfuzhOgzfBAr71c49h7r01A86zCc4kl7EPeO4BJ5himn3Y49hhF0NMOMdjspBxIddcLtTJw-2SmQBStT6Cw9OxHYp39jEsxlMcTveqtDdFn0zI02DCfA8s6V3vg3mHDc42Tgu5ml6gZ50ZMlydrxv049PH77sv1c23z193H26qtlZsrpraSOYUc1YJRVjbSOIs5Y1sKFjiSAeCdJLRVnZSbo01zNBO8K1riBItMXyD3q_eMvcIzkIoMw56Sn406U5H4_Xfb4Lv9T6etORKCc6K4M1ZkOLPI-RZjz5bGMqSEI9ZM0aI2gpa_tsGvf4HPZTvGsp6mlElKVN8SwrFV8qmmHOC7mEYSvRSCX2uhF4qoddKlNSrx3s8ZP4UoADXK1DS_2X8DUukx0Q</recordid><startdate>20190205</startdate><enddate>20190205</enddate><creator>Rogers, Wendy</creator><creator>Robertson, Matthew P</creator><creator>Ballantyne, Angela</creator><creator>Blakely, Brette</creator><creator>Catsanos, Ruby</creator><creator>Clay-Williams, Robyn</creator><creator>Fiatarone Singh, Maria</creator><general>BMJ Publishing Group LTD</general><general>BMJ Publishing Group</general><scope>9YT</scope><scope>ACMMV</scope><scope>CGR</scope><scope>CUY</scope><scope>CVF</scope><scope>ECM</scope><scope>EIF</scope><scope>NPM</scope><scope>AAYXX</scope><scope>CITATION</scope><scope>3V.</scope><scope>7RV</scope><scope>7X7</scope><scope>7XB</scope><scope>88E</scope><scope>88G</scope><scope>8FI</scope><scope>8FJ</scope><scope>8FK</scope><scope>ABUWG</scope><scope>AFKRA</scope><scope>AZQEC</scope><scope>BENPR</scope><scope>BTHHO</scope><scope>CCPQU</scope><scope>DWQXO</scope><scope>FYUFA</scope><scope>GHDGH</scope><scope>GNUQQ</scope><scope>K9-</scope><scope>K9.</scope><scope>KB0</scope><scope>M0R</scope><scope>M0S</scope><scope>M1P</scope><scope>M2M</scope><scope>NAPCQ</scope><scope>PIMPY</scope><scope>PQEST</scope><scope>PQQKQ</scope><scope>PQUKI</scope><scope>PSYQQ</scope><scope>Q9U</scope><scope>7X8</scope><scope>5PM</scope><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0001-9186-870X</orcidid><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0002-6107-7445</orcidid></search><sort><creationdate>20190205</creationdate><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><author>Rogers, Wendy ; Robertson, Matthew P ; Ballantyne, Angela ; Blakely, Brette ; Catsanos, Ruby ; Clay-Williams, Robyn ; Fiatarone Singh, Maria</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-b472t-94a62d72dc75702b960dc139691ec0d0fe50f621b6f668aca2a1f538d9075b0a3</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>2019</creationdate><topic>Bans</topic><topic>Blood & organ donations</topic><topic>China</topic><topic>Consent</topic><topic>Ethical Review</topic><topic>Ethics</topic><topic>Guideline Adherence - statistics & numerical data</topic><topic>Humans</topic><topic>Liver cancer</topic><topic>Massacres</topic><topic>Medical research</topic><topic>Organ Transplantation - ethics</topic><topic>Organ Transplantation - standards</topic><topic>Organ Transplantation - statistics & numerical data</topic><topic>Peer Review - standards</topic><topic>Periodicals as Topic - standards</topic><topic>Periodicals as Topic - statistics & numerical data</topic><topic>Researchers</topic><topic>Sanctions</topic><topic>Systematic review</topic><topic>Tissue Donors - ethics</topic><topic>Transplants & implants</topic><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>Rogers, Wendy</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Robertson, Matthew P</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Ballantyne, Angela</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Blakely, Brette</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Catsanos, Ruby</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Clay-Williams, Robyn</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Fiatarone Singh, Maria</creatorcontrib><collection>BMJ Open Access Journals</collection><collection>BMJ Journals:Open Access</collection><collection>Medline</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>MEDLINE (Ovid)</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>PubMed</collection><collection>CrossRef</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Corporate)</collection><collection>Proquest Nursing & Allied Health Source</collection><collection>Health & Medical Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (purchase pre-March 2016)</collection><collection>Medical Database (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>Psychology Database (Alumni)</collection><collection>Hospital Premium Collection</collection><collection>Hospital Premium Collection (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Alumni) (purchase pre-March 2016)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central UK/Ireland</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Essentials</collection><collection>ProQuest Central</collection><collection>BMJ Journals</collection><collection>ProQuest One Community College</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Korea</collection><collection>Health Research Premium Collection</collection><collection>Health Research Premium Collection (Alumni)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Student</collection><collection>Consumer Health Database (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ProQuest Health & Medical Complete (Alumni)</collection><collection>Nursing & Allied Health Database (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>Consumer Health Database</collection><collection>Health & Medical Collection (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>Medical Database</collection><collection>Psychology Database (ProQuest)</collection><collection>Nursing & Allied Health Premium</collection><collection>Publicly Available Content Database</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic Eastern Edition (DO NOT USE)</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic UKI Edition</collection><collection>ProQuest One Psychology</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Basic</collection><collection>MEDLINE - Academic</collection><collection>PubMed Central (Full Participant titles)</collection><jtitle>BMJ open</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>Rogers, Wendy</au><au>Robertson, Matthew P</au><au>Ballantyne, Angela</au><au>Blakely, Brette</au><au>Catsanos, Ruby</au><au>Clay-Williams, Robyn</au><au>Fiatarone Singh, Maria</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>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</atitle><jtitle>BMJ open</jtitle><addtitle>BMJ Open</addtitle><date>2019-02-05</date><risdate>2019</risdate><volume>9</volume><issue>2</issue><spage>e024473</spage><epage>e024473</epage><pages>e024473-e024473</pages><issn>2044-6055</issn><eissn>2044-6055</eissn><abstract>ObjectivesThe 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.DesignScoping review based on Arksey and O’Mallee’s methodological framework.Data sourcesMedline, Scopus and Embase were searched from January 2000 to April 2017.Eligibility criteriaWe 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 synthesisData were extracted by individual authors working independently following training and benchmarking. Descriptive statistics were compiled using Excel.Results445 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.DiscussionThe 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.</abstract><cop>England</cop><pub>BMJ Publishing Group LTD</pub><pmid>30723071</pmid><doi>10.1136/bmjopen-2018-024473</doi><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0001-9186-870X</orcidid><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0002-6107-7445</orcidid><oa>free_for_read</oa></addata></record> |
| fulltext | fulltext |
| identifier | ISSN: 2044-6055 |
| ispartof | BMJ open, 2019-02, Vol.9 (2), p.e024473-e024473 |
| issn | 2044-6055 2044-6055 |
| language | eng |
| recordid | cdi_pubmedcentral_primary_oai_pubmedcentral_nih_gov_6377532 |
| source | BMJ Open Access Journals; MEDLINE; DOAJ Directory of Open Access Journals; PubMed Central Open Access; EZB-FREE-00999 freely available EZB journals; PubMed Central |
| subjects | Bans Blood & organ donations China Consent Ethical Review Ethics Guideline Adherence - statistics & numerical data Humans Liver cancer Massacres Medical research Organ Transplantation - ethics Organ Transplantation - standards Organ Transplantation - statistics & numerical data Peer Review - standards Periodicals as Topic - standards Periodicals as Topic - statistics & numerical data Researchers Sanctions Systematic review Tissue Donors - ethics Transplants & implants |
| 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 |
| url | https://sfx.bib-bvb.de/sfx_tum?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2025-01-07T10%3A35%3A55IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-proquest_pubme&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=Compliance%20with%20ethical%20standards%20in%20the%20reporting%20of%20donor%20sources%20and%20ethics%20review%20in%20peer-reviewed%20publications%20involving%20organ%20transplantation%20in%20China:%20a%20scoping%20review&rft.jtitle=BMJ%20open&rft.au=Rogers,%20Wendy&rft.date=2019-02-05&rft.volume=9&rft.issue=2&rft.spage=e024473&rft.epage=e024473&rft.pages=e024473-e024473&rft.issn=2044-6055&rft.eissn=2044-6055&rft_id=info:doi/10.1136/bmjopen-2018-024473&rft_dat=%3Cproquest_pubme%3E2176127380%3C/proquest_pubme%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&disable_directlink=true&sfx.directlink=off&sfx.report_link=0&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_pqid=2176127380&rft_id=info:pmid/30723071&rfr_iscdi=true |