Evidence map›Paper›PMID 17035155›Full record

ArticleEnvironmental health perspectives2006

Supplementing the traditional institutional review board with an environmental health and community review board.

Steven G Gilbert

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Environmental health perspectives, 2006. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 9 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
9citing 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

9 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Not whether but how: the ethics and Language of reporting back individual results.Environmental health : a global access science source · 2025
    Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Ethical community-engaged research: a literature review.American journal of public health · 2013
    Review
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

1 author.

Steven G GilbertInstitute of Neurotoxicology and Neurological Disorders, Seattle, Washington 98115, USA. sgilbert@innd.org

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundCommunity-based research often involves additional ethical, legal, and social considerations beyond those of the specific individuals involved in the study. The traditional institutional review board (IRB) typically focuses on protecting the rights and ensuring the safety of the individuals involved. For projects involving community members, IRBs should be more sensitive to issues related to the broader community concerns.

objectivesThe objective of this article is to discuss the concept of community-based participatory research and the shortcomings of the traditional IRBs in dealing with ethical issues associated with broader community concerns such as implications for family members, neighborhood groups, and local businesses. I examine the rationale and benefits for expanding the roles and responsibilities of review boards related to community-based issues. DISCUSSION: I propose the development of environmental health and community review boards (EHCRBs) that combine the fundamental responsibilities and ethical concept of the traditional review boards with an expanded ethical construct of dignity, veracity, sustainability, and justice, with an added emphasis on community.

conclusionsOnly by acknowledging the needs of and working with the community can we ensure ethically based and socially responsible research. An EHCRB will allow researchers and community members to more fully address their mutual interest in conducting scientific, ethical, and socially responsible research.

Indexed as

Environmental HealthEthics Committees, ResearchEthics, ResearchHumans

Identifiers

PMID17035155
PMCPMC1626437

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC0
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.