ArticleCMAJ : Canadian Medical Association journal = journal de l'Association medicale canadienne2001
Monitoring clinical research: report of one hospital's experience.
Article in CMAJ : Canadian Medical Association journal = journal de l'Association medicale canadienne, 2001. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
6 citing papers in PubMed.
- Are institutional review boards prepared for active continuing review?Perspectives in clinical research · 2014Article
- Continuing review of ethics in clinical trials: a surveillance study in Iran.Journal of medical ethics and history of medicine · 2013Article
- Monitoring and oversight in critical care research.Critical care (London, England) · 2004Article
- Ethics in exercise science research.Sports medicine (Auckland, N.Z.) · 2002Review
- Who should foot the bill for continuing review of research?CMAJ : Canadian Medical Association journal = journal de l'Association medicale canadienne · 2001Article
- Continuing review of research approved by Canadian research ethics boards.CMAJ : Canadian Medical Association journal = journal de l'Association medicale canadienne · 2001Article
Corrections and comments
- Commented on by
- Commented on by
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Monitoring of research by research ethics boards has been recommended by various organizations that fund clinical studies and by other groups. However, little evidence has been reported on the processes, costs and outcomes of these activities, information that would be helpful to guide the boards in their current work and future policies. We report here 3 years of monitoring experience by the research ethics board of a 313-bed university-affiliated community hospital. Activities newly implemented at the beginning of the study period included the use of recruitment logs, audits of completed consent forms and interviews with research subjects. Over the study period, we monitored 33 protocols, through 188 consent form audits and interviews with 17 research subjects. In addition, 26 of 34 research investigators and collaborators responded to a survey about the monitoring. In general, the investigators were supportive of monitoring activities, but most were not willing to contribute financially. The types of monitoring we conducted are feasible and may be suitable (or could be adapted) for use in other institutions.
Indexed as
Identifiers
11341145PMC81026What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.