ArticleBMC medical ethics2002
International variation in ethics committee requirements: comparisons across five Westernised nations.
Article in BMC medical ethics, 2002. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 18 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
18 citing papers in PubMed.
- Making trauma ecological momentary assessment studies FAIR: review of design considerations and data procedures.European journal of psychotraumatology · 2025Review
- Developing evidence-based guidelines for describing potential benefits and harms within patient information leaflets/sheets (PILs) that inform and do not cause harm (PrinciPILs).Health technology assessment (Winchester, England) · 2025Article
- Emerging technologies and research ethics: Developing editorial policy using a scoping review and reference panel.PloS one · 2024Article
- Co-production of guidance and resources to implement principled participant information leaflets (PrinciPILs).NIHR open research · 2023Article
- Article
- Huge variation in obtaining ethical permission for a non-interventional observational study in Europe.BMC medical ethics · 2019Article
- Challenges to Informed Consent in First-In-Human Trials Involving Novel Treatments: A Case Study of Parkinson's Disease.Journal of Parkinson's disease · 2017Article
- Time required to review research protocols at 10 Veterans Affairs Institutional Review Boards.The Journal of surgical research · 2016Article
- Time required for institutional review board review at one Veterans Affairs medical center.JAMA surgery · 2015Article
- Shortcomings of protocols of drug trials in relation to sponsorship as identified by Research Ethics Committees: analysis of comments raised during ethical review.BMC medical ethics · 2014Article
- Undergraduate research involving human subjects should not be granted ethical approval unless it is likely to be of publishable quality.HEC forum : an interdisciplinary journal on hospitals' ethical and legal issues · 2014Article
- Ethical issues in research involving minority populations: the process and outcomes of protocol review by the Ethics Committee of the Faculty of Tropical Medicine, Mahidol University, Thailand.BMC medical ethics · 2013Article
- Ask not what your REB can do for you; ask what you can do for your REB.Canadian family physician Medecin de famille canadien · 2011Article
- Evaluation of the quality of informed consent in a vaccine field trial in a developing country setting.BMC medical ethics · 2008Article
- A five year follow-up national study of ethics committees in medical organizations in Japan.HEC forum : an interdisciplinary journal on hospitals' ethical and legal issues · 2008Article
- An eight-year follow-up national study of medical school and general hospital ethics committees in Japan.BMC medical ethics · 2007Article
- Consenting of the vulnerable: the informed consent procedure in advanced cancer patients in Mexico.BMC medical ethics · 2006Article
- Ethics of healthcare research in developing countries.Journal of the Royal Society of Medicine · 2002Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundEthics committees typically apply the common principles of autonomy, nonmaleficence, beneficence and justice to research proposals but with variable weighting and interpretation. This paper reports a comparison of ethical requirements in an international cross-cultural study and discusses their implications. DISCUSSION: The study was run concurrently in New Zealand, UK, Israel, Canada and USA and involved testing hypotheses about believability of testimonies regarding alleged child sexual abuse. Ethics committee requirements to conduct this study ranged from nil in Israel to considerable amendments designed to minimise participant harm in New Zealand. Assessment of minimal risk is a complex and unreliable estimation further compounded by insufficient information on probabilities of particular individuals suffering harm. Estimating potential benefits/ risks ratio and protecting participants' autonomy similarly are not straightforward exercises. SUMMARY: Safeguarding moral/humane principles should be balanced with promotion of ethical research which does not impede research posing minimal risk to participants. In ensuring that ethical standards are met and research has scientific merit, ethics committees have obligations to participants (to meet their rights and protect them from harm); to society (to ensure good quality research is conducted); and to researchers (to treat their proposals with just consideration and respect). To facilitate meeting all these obligations, the preferable focus should be promotion of ethical research, rather than the prevention of unethical research, which inevitably results in the impediment of researchers from doing their work. How the ethical principles should be applied and balanced requires further consideration.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What 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.