Cardiac Radiology: Centenary Review

Cardiovascular Aspects of Radiolog

Ethics Reporting in Forensic Science Research Publications - A Review

An essential element of compliance with ethical standards in scientific research is the reporting of a verifiable declaration of ethical approval and, when human subjects are involved - informed consent, in published works. The level of reporting of ethical permission for research published in forensic and investigative sciences journals has not been explored to date. Hence, we examined the reporting of ethical approval and informed consent in original research utilising human or animal subjects published in six forensic science journals from 2010 to 2019. We identified 10,192 articles and retained 3010 that satisfied the inclusion criteria of utilising human (91.2%), or animal (7.0%) or both (1.8%) subjects or tissues in experiments. Just over a third (1079/3010) of all studies declared obtaining ethical approval, with 927 (85.9%) of those indicating the name of the ethical committee, but only 392 (36%) provided an approval code. Furthermore, while consent was said to have been sought in 527 (17.5%) of studies, only 155 of those reported that written informed consent was obtained, eleven stated oral (verbal) consent, while the remaining 357 studies (67.7%) did not report the process used to gain consent. Ethical approval reporting rates differed between different research types, availability of financial support and whether authors were affiliated to academia or industry. The results demonstrate a low level of declaration of ethical approval and informed consent in forensic science research and publication, requiring urgent rectification. We support the adoption of the model proposed by Forensic Science International: Genetics as baseline recommendations to facilitate consistent nomenclature, transparency, and standard of ethical reporting in forensic science.Dan O.M. Bonsua, Constance B. Afoakwah, Maxwell Abedi, Denice Higgins, Jeremy J. Austi

Government advice on peanut avoidance during pregnancy: is it followed correctly and what is the impact on sensitization?

Background In 1998, the UK government issued precautionary advice that pregnant or breast-feeding women with a family history of atopy, may wish to avoid eating peanuts during pregnancy and lactation. This study aimed to assess the compliance with this recommendation and investigate its impact upon peanut sensitization. Methods A total of 858 children born immediately after the advice were followed for 2 years and assessed for peanut sensitization. A standardized questionnaire was used to ascertain history of atopy and maternal exposure to peanuts during pregnancy. Following parental consent children were skin prick tested to assess sensitization to peanuts. Results Sixty-five per cent of mothers had avoided peanuts during pregnancy. Forty-two per cent of the mothers had heard about the government advice, and half modified their diet as a consequence. Neither maternal nor family history of atopy had any significant effect on peanut consumption. Parity did play a role, and mothers having their first child were twice as likely to change their diet (P < 0.001). Mothers of 77% of the children sensitized to peanuts had avoided peanuts during pregnancy. In this cohort study maternal consumption of peanut during pregnancy was not associated with peanut sensitization in the infant. Conclusions The majority of mothers in this cohort avoided peanut consumption during pregnancy. It is likely that either the government advice is misunderstood by mothers, or that those who communicate the advice have not fully explained who it is targeted at