ArticleJournal of medical ethics2007
Factors influencing the effectiveness of research ethics committees.
Article in Journal of medical ethics, 2007. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 35 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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
35 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Evaluating IACUCs: Previous Research and Future Directions.Journal of the American Association for Laboratory Animal Science : JAALAS · 2020Pooled it
- Approved Ambiguities: An Analysis of Applications for the Ethical Review of Animal Research in Sweden-Focusing on Harm, Benefit, and the 3Rs.Animals : an open access journal from MDPI · 2025Article
- Reader Responses to Online Reporting of Tagged Bird Behavior.Animals : an open access journal from MDPI · 2025Article
- Rapid systematic literature review: Camera trap sampling in ecological studies: Considerations of wildlife welfare.Animal welfare (South Mimms, England) · 2025Review
- Article
- Interdisciplinary Animal Research Ethics-Challenges, Opportunities, and Perspectives.Animals : an open access journal from MDPI · 2024Article
- Animal Research Regulation: Improving Decision-Making and Adopting a Transparent System to Address Concerns around Approval Rate of Experiments.Animals : an open access journal from MDPI · 2024Article
- Cross-border data sharing through the lens of research ethics committee members in sub-Saharan Africa.PloS one · 2024Article
- Considerations for legal, ethical, and effective practice in dementia research.Brain communications · 2024Review
- How ethics committees and requirements are structuring health research in the Philippines: a qualitative study.BMC medical ethics · 2021Article
- Open Transparent Communication about Animals in Laboratories: Dialog for Multiple Voices and Multiple Audiences.Animals : an open access journal from MDPI · 2021Article
- The Dispensable Surplus Dairy Calf: Is This Issue a "Wicked Problem" and Where Do We Go From Here?Frontiers in veterinary science · 2021Review
- Article
- Animal Research, Accountability, Openness and Public Engagement: Report from an International Expert Forum.Animals : an open access journal from MDPI · 2019Article
- Emotions and Ethical Decision-Making in Animal Ethics Committees.Animals : an open access journal from MDPI · 2018Article
- Factors Influencing IACUC Decision Making: Who Leads the Discussions?Journal of empirical research on human research ethics : JERHRE · 2017Article
- A Case-Study of the Resources and Functioning of Two Research Ethics Committees in Western India.Journal of empirical research on human research ethics : JERHRE · 2016Article
- Young people's views about the purpose and composition of research ethics committees: findings from the PEARL qualitative study.BMC medical ethics · 2016Article
- Barriers to Effective Deliberation in Clinical Research Oversight.HEC forum : an interdisciplinary journal on hospitals' ethical and legal issues · 2016Article
- Research ethics committees in the regulation of clinical research: comparison of Finland to England, Canada, and the United States.Health research policy and systems · 2016Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Research ethics committees - animal ethics committees (AECs) for animal-based research and institutional research boards (IRBs) for human subjects - have a key role in research governance, but there has been little study of the factors influencing their effectiveness. The objectives of this study were to examine how the effectiveness of a research ethics committee is influenced by committee composition and dynamics, recruitment of members, workload, participation level and member turnover. As a model, 28 members of AECs at four universities in western Canada were interviewed. Committees were selected to represent variation in the number and type of protocols reviewed, and participants were selected to include different types of committee members. We found that a bias towards institutional or scientific interests may result from (1) a preponderance of institutional and scientist members, (2) an intimidating atmosphere for community members and other minority members, (3) recruitment of community members who are affiliated with the institution and (4) members joining for reasons other than to fulfil the committee mandate. Thoroughness of protocol review may be influenced by heavy workloads, type of review process and lack of full committee participation. These results, together with results from the literature on research ethics committees, suggested potential ways to improve the effectiveness of research ethics committees.
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.