Evidence map›Paper›PMID 12084680›Full record

ArticleAmerican journal of public health2002

Time, place, and consciousness: three dimensions of meaning for US institutional review boards.

Sarah B Putney, Sofia Gruskin

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in American journal of public health, 2002. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
3citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

3 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Field research with underserved minorities: the ideal and the real.Journal of urban health : bulletin of the New York Academy of Medicine · 2005
    Article
  3. Ethics in public health institutions.American journal of public health · 2002
    Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

2 authors.

Sarah B PutneyHuman Subjects Committee, François-Xavier Bagnoud Center for Health and Human Rights, Harvard School of Public Health, Boston, MA 02120, USA. sputney@hsph.harvard.edu
Sofia Gruskin

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

In the past few years, US federal agencies governing research with human subjects and institutional review boards have taken a higher-profile path than ever before, both at home and internationally. This trend carries profound significance for US-based institutions and has implications also for the rest of the world. What does this critical moment of heightened federal scrutiny mean for the workings of US institutional review boards? We examined board activity across 3 dimensions: time, place, and consciousness. We conclude that although institutions in all areas of biomedical and social science research are adapting their practices, the field of public health is especially well positioned to adapt to, and succeed in, new efforts to ensure protection of human research subjects.

Indexed as

EthicsHuman ExperimentationAcademic Medical CentersEthics Committees, ResearchFinancing, GovernmentGovernment AgenciesHumansOrganizational CultureProfessional RolePublic HealthResearchResearch Support as TopicSocial ResponsibilityUnited StatesBiomedical and Behavioral Research

Identifiers

PMID12084680
PMCPMC1447189

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.