ArticleBMC health services research2010
Ethics review as a component of institutional approval for a multicentre continuous quality improvement project: the investigator's perspective.
Article in BMC health services research, 2010. 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, 33 citations in OpenAlex.
- Article
- Record linkage of population-based cohort data from minors with national register data: a scoping review and comparative legal analysis of four European countries.Open research Europe · 2021Article
- A call for a streamlined ethics review process for multijurisdictional, child health research studies.Paediatrics & child health · 2020Article
- Exploring the challenges of ethical conduct in quality improvement projects.Canadian oncology nursing journal = Revue canadienne de nursing oncologique · 2020Article
- How to get ethics committee approval for clinical trials in Turkey?Northern clinics of Istanbul · 2018Review
- Ethics review of pediatric multi-center drug trials.Paediatric drugs · 2015Review
- Protecting intellectual property associated with Canadian academic clinical trials--approaches and impact.Trials · 2012Article
- A study to assess completeness of project application forms submitted to Institutional Ethics Committees (IEC) of a tertiary care hospital.Perspectives in clinical research · 2012Article
- Procedure versus process: ethical paradigms and the conduct of qualitative research.BMC medical ethics · 2012Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundFor ethical approval of a multicentre study in Canada, investigators must apply separately to individual Research Ethics Boards (REBs). In principle, the protection of human research subjects is of utmost importance. However, in practice, the process of multicentre ethics review can be time consuming and costly, requiring duplication of effort for researchers and REBs. We used our experience with ethical review of The Canadian Perinatal Network (CPN), to gain insight into the Canadian system.
methodsThe applications forms of 16 different REBs were abstracted for a list of standardized items. The application process across sites was compared. Correspondence between the REB and the investigators was documented in order to construct a timeline to approval, identify the specific issues raised by each board, and describe how they were resolved.
resultsEach REB had a different application form. Most (n = 9) had a two or three step application process. Overall, it took a median of 31 days (range 2-174 days) to receive an initial response from the REB. Approval took a median of 42 days (range 4-443 days). Privacy and consent were the two major issues raised. Several additional minor or administrative issues were raised which delayed approval.
conclusionsFor CPN, the Canadian REB process of ethical review proved challenging. REBs acted independently and without unified application forms or submission procedures. We call for a critical examination of the ethical, privacy and institutional review processes in Canada, to determine the best way to undertake multicentre review.
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.