Evidence map›Paper›PMID 21439178›Full record

ArticleThe British journal of general practice : the journal of the Royal College of General Practitioners2011

Seeking ethical approval for an international study in primary care patient safety.

Susan Dovey, Katherine Hall, Meredith Makeham, Walter Rosser, Anton Kuzel, Chris Van Weel, Aneez Esmail, Robert Phillips

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in The British journal of general practice : the journal of the Royal College of General Practitioners, 2011. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
3citing papers in PubMed
–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

3 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. 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

8 authors.

Susan DoveyDepartment of General Practice and Rural Health, Dunedin School of Medicine, University of Otago, Dunedin, New Zealand. susan.dovey@otago.ac.nz
Katherine Hall
Meredith Makeham
Walter Rosser
Anton Kuzel
Chris Van Weel
Aneez Esmail
Robert Phillips

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Seeking ethics committee approval for research can be challenging even for relatively simple studies occurring in single settings. Complicating factors such as multicentre studies and/or contentious research issues can challenge review processes, and conducting such studies internationally adds a further layer of complexity. This paper draws on the experiences of the LINNAEUS Collaboration, an international group of primary care researchers, in obtaining ethics approval to conduct an international study investigating medical error in general practice in six countries. It describes the ethics review processes applied to exactly the same research protocol for a study run in Australia, Canada, England, the Netherlands, New Zealand, and the US. Wide variation in ethics review responses to the research proposal occurred, from no approval being deemed necessary to the study plan narrowly avoiding rejection. The authors' experiences demonstrated that ethics committees operate in their own historical and cultural context, which can lead to radically different subjective interpretations of commonly-held ethical principles, and raised further issues such as 'what is research?'. This first LINNAEUS study started when patient safety was a particularly sensitive subject. Although it is now a respectable area of inquiry, patient safety is still a topic that can excite emotions and prejudices. The LINNAEUS Collaboration now extends to more countries and continues to pursue an international research agenda, so reflection on the influences of history, social context, and structure of each country's ethical review processes is timely.

Indexed as

Ethical ReviewEthics CommitteesResearchAustraliaCanadaEuropeGeneral PracticeHumansMedical ErrorsNew ZealandSafety ManagementUnited States

Identifiers

PMID21439178
PMCPMC3063049

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.