Evidence map›Paper›PMID 20673343›Full record

ArticleBMC health services research2010

Ethics review as a component of institutional approval for a multicentre continuous quality improvement project: the investigator's perspective.

Hanna Ezzat, Sue Ross, Peter von Dadelszen, Tara Morris, Robert Liston, Laura A Magee, CPN Collaborative Group

Open access · goldAbstract readMulticenter Study
In one paragraph

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.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
9citing papers in PubMed
2.4field-weighted citation impact, top 12% of its field
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

9 citing papers in PubMed, 33 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Exploring the challenges of ethical conduct in quality improvement projects.Canadian oncology nursing journal = Revue canadienne de nursing oncologique · 2020
    Article
  5. Review
  6. Review
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. 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

7 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Hanna EzzatDepartment of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, University of British Columbia, Vancouver, V6 H 3N1, Canada.
Sue Ross
Peter von Dadelszen
Tara Morris
Robert Liston
Laura A Magee
CPN Collaborative Group
University of British Columbia · CAUniversity of Calgary · CA

Funding

Canadian Institutes of Health Research
6 · The paper itself

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

CanadaEthics CommitteesForms and Records ControlHospitals, PublicHumansTotal Quality Management

Identifiers

PMID20673343
PMCPMC2921081
OpenAlexW1706784734

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.