A five year follow-up national study of ethics committees in medical organizations in Japan.

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, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

1. Domains of quality for clinical ethics case consultation: a mixed-method systematic review.Systematic reviews · 2016
   Pooled it
2. Conceptualizing and Fostering the Quality of CES Through a Dutch National Network on CES (NEON).HEC forum : an interdisciplinary journal on hospitals' ethical and legal issues · 2022
   Article
3. Implementation of Japan's First Clinical Research Regulatory Law: Background, Overview, and Challenges.HEC forum : an interdisciplinary journal on hospitals' ethical and legal issues · 2019
   Article
4. Research ethics review at University Eduardo Mondlane (UEM)/Maputo Central Hospital, Mozambique (2013-2016): a descriptive analysis of the start-up of a new research ethics committee (REC).BMC medical ethics · 2018
   Article
5. Clinical Ethics Support for Healthcare Personnel: An Integrative Literature Review.HEC forum : an interdisciplinary journal on hospitals' ethical and legal issues · 2017
   Review
6. Hospital/clinical ethics committees' notion: an overview.Journal of medical ethics and history of medicine · 2016
   Review

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

PubMed holds no abstract for this paper.

Indexed as