Evidence map›Paper›PMID 20034184›Full record

ArticleIRB

Points to consider: The research ethics consultation service and the IRB.

Laura M Beskow, Christine Grady, Ana S Iltis, John Z Sadler, Benjamin S Wilfond

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in IRB. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 18 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
18citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–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

18 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Research ethics consultation: ethical and professional practice challenges and recommendations.Academic medicine : journal of the Association of American Medical Colleges · 2015
    Review
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Review
  17. Article
  18. 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

5 authors.

Laura M BeskowDuke Institute for Genome Sciences and Policy, Duke University, Durham, NC, USA.
Christine Grady
Ana S Iltis
John Z Sadler
Benjamin S Wilfond

Funding

INSTITUTE FOR TRANSLATIONAL HEALTH SCIENCE (UL1): BPCAUL1RR025014 · NCRR · UNIVERSITY OF WASHINGTON · PI DISIS, MARY L. · 2007 to 2011
$51.5M
Institute of Translational Health SciencesUL1TR000423 · NCATS · UNIVERSITY OF WASHINGTON · PI DISIS, MARY L. · 2012 to 2016
$49.4M
Pilot Project for the DTMI CRA ProgramUL1RR024128 · NCRR · DUKE UNIVERSITY · PI CALIFF, ROBERT M · 2006 to 2010
$48.1M
Washington University Institute of Clinical and Translational Sciences (UL1)UL1RR024992 · NCRR · WASHINGTON UNIVERSITY · PI EVANOFF, BRADLEY A · 2007 to 2011
$45.4M
North and Central Texas Clinical and Translational Science Initiative (KL2)KL2RR024983 · NCRR · UT SOUTHWESTERN MEDICAL CENTER · PI TOTO, ROBERT DANIEL · 2007 to 2011
$4.3M
NCATS NIH HHS UL1 TR000423NCRR NIH HHS KL2 RR024983NCRR NIH HHS UL1 RR024128NCRR NIH HHS UL1 RR024992NCRR NIH HHS UL1 RR025014
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

PubMed holds no abstract for this paper.

Indexed as

Ethics Committees, ResearchEthics ConsultationEthics, ResearchClinical Trials as TopicHumansUnited States

Identifiers

PMID20034184
PMCPMC2921073

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceTDM
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.