ArticleJournal of the Royal Society of Medicine2009
Research governance delays for a multicentre non-interventional study.
Article in Journal of the Royal Society of Medicine, 2009. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 9 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
9 citing papers in PubMed.
- Undertaking Studies Within A Trial to evaluate recruitment and retention strategies for randomised controlled trials: lessons learnt from the PROMETHEUS research programme.Health technology assessment (Winchester, England) · 2024Article
- Advancing health through evidence assisted decisions with health policy and systems research program: a qualitative evaluation of a national health research grant management process in the Philippines.Health research policy and systems · 2023Article
- Challenges and solutions to the implementation of studies within a trial: The experiences of the PROMETHEUS programme.Research methods in medicine & health sciences · 2023Article
- The understanding of research ethics at health sciences schools in Jordan: a cross-sectional study.BMC medical education · 2020Article
- Article
- Bureaucracy stifles medical research in Britain: a tale of three trials.BMC medical research methodology · 2012Article
- Knowledge, Awareness, and Attitudes about Research Ethics among Dental Faculty in the Middle East: A Pilot Study.International journal of dentistry · 2011Article
- One stop or full stop? The continuing challenges for researchers despite the new streamlined NHS research governance process.BMC health services research · 2010Article
- Research governance approval delays studies.Journal of the Royal Society of Medicine · 2009Article
Corrections and comments
- Commented on by
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivesTo evaluate the delay in research governance approval for a non-interventional, multicentre study in the United Kingdom.
designThe times taken from application to the granting of research governance approval for an observational study of childhood stroke with ethical approval were prospectively recorded.
settingNinety-two acute NHS Trusts in the United Kingdom. Main outcome measures Median delay (in working days) between application and research governance approval.
resultsThe median delay between application and research governance approval was 43 working days (interquartile range 27-62, range 0-147). The reason for delay beyond 43 working days was inexplicable in 30 (70%) of 44 trusts.
conclusionsThere is considerable variation in the processes undertaken by research and development departments that can lead to significant delays in commencing an ethically approved study. Any improvements to the systems for gaining approval are welcome.
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.