ArticleRevista romana de bioetica2011
ETHICAL REVIEW OF BIOMEDICAL RESEARCH IN BELARUS: CURRENT STATUS, PROBLEMS AND PERSPECTIVES.
Article in Revista romana de bioetica, 2011. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 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
6 citing papers in PubMed.
- Decision Letters from a Kyrgyz Research Ethics Committee (2018-2022): An Empirical Review of Transparency, Rigor, and Communication.Journal of empirical research on human research ethics : JERHRE · 2026Article
- Research Ethics in the Context of Transition: Gaps in Policies and Programs on the Protection of Research Participants in the Selected Countries of Central and Eastern Europe.Science and engineering ethics · 2016Article
- Research ethics review: identifying public policy and program gaps.Journal of empirical research on human research ethics : JERHRE · 2014Article
- Publication ethics in biomedical journals from countries in Central and Eastern Europe.Science and engineering ethics · 2014Article
- Building research ethics capacity in post-communist countries: experience of two Fogarty training programs.Journal of empirical research on human research ethics : JERHRE · 2013Article
- Failures in clinical trials in the European Union: lessons from the Polish experience.Science and engineering ethics · 2013Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
1 author.
Funding
Abstract
The paper provides description of the system of ethical review for biomedical research in Belarus, with special emphasis on its historical background, legal and regulatory framework, structure and functioning. It concludes that the situation with research ethics in Belarus corresponds to the tendency of bureaucratic approach to establishment of systems of ethical review for biomedical research, observed in a number of countries of Central and Eastern Europe. Different social, economical and political factors of transition have major impact on capacities of the Belarusian RECs to ensure adequate protection of human subjects. Among the main problems identified are non-equivalent stringency of ethical review for different types of biomedical research; lack of independence, multidisciplinarity, pluralism and lay representation experienced by RECs; low level of research ethics education and transparency of RECs activities. Recommendations are made to raise the issue of research ethics on the national agenda in order to develop and maintain the research ethics system capable to effectively protect research participants and promote ethical conduct in research.
Identifiers
22701397PMC3372927What 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.