ArticleCroatian medical journal2010
Reflections on running training workshops for research ethics committee members in Spain between 2001 and 2008.
Article in Croatian medical journal, 2010. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- An evaluation of a data linkage training workshop for research ethics committees.BMC medical ethics · 2015Article
- A Scoping Review of Empirical Research Relating to Quality and Effectiveness of Research Ethics Review.PloS one · 2015Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
aimTo present the experience of running workshops for members of research ethics committees (REC) in Spain from 2001-2008 by a non-profit institution.
methodsWe analyzed data from 7 sessions of the course, involving 165 health professionals. Data were taken from an opinion survey conducted at the end of each seminar and a deferred questionnaire sent after the workshops.
resultsOpinions of 122 participants who completed the first questionnaire (84% of the 146 attendees) on these training courses were very positive (median, ≥ 4.5 out of 5). The second questionnaire was administered a few months after each session, and a total of 43 participants responded (36% of 118). The participants improved their knowledge, attitude, and skills (median, 4.0 out of 5) in most of the areas evaluated. Furthermore, they believed that training for REC members should be mandatory (median, 5.0 out of 5) and carried out regularly (median, 4.0 out of 5). The lack of communication between RECs and limitations in monitoring clinical trials (median, 4.5 out of 5) were the main problems according to respondents. Training was rated as a strong necessity (median, 4.0 out of 5).
conclusionThe courses were well received, they contributed to the overall learning of the participants, and served to highlight some of the major problems faced by REC members. These results emphasize the importance of training.
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.