Evidence map›Paper›PMID 23738971›Full record

ArticleBMC medical ethics2013

Research site monitoring for compliance with ethics regulatory standards: review of experience from Uganda.

Joseph Ochieng, Julius Ecuru, Frederick Nakwagala, Paul Kutyabami

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in BMC medical ethics, 2013. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 17 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
17citing papers in PubMed
2.0field-weighted citation impact, top 14% 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

17 citing papers in PubMed, 35 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Ethics Committees: Structure, Roles, and Issues.Journal of Korean medical science · 2023
    Review
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Review
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Ensuring participant safety and trial integrity with clinical trials oversight.Journal of acquired immune deficiency syndromes (1999) · 2014
    Article
  16. Article
  17. 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

4 authors at 3 institutions in 2 countries.

Joseph OchiengDepartment of Anatomy, School of Biomedical Sciences, College of Health Sciences, Makerere University, Mulago Hill, Kampala, Uganda. ochiengjoe@yahoo.com
Julius Ecuru
Frederick Nakwagala
Paul Kutyabami
Makerere University · UGMulago Hospital · UGUganda National Council for Science and Technology · UG

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundOn site monitoring of research is one of the most effective ways to ensure compliance during research conduct. However, it is least carried out primarily for two reasons: presumed high costs both in terms of human resources and finances; and the lack of a clear framework for undertaking site monitoring. In this paper we discuss a model for research site monitoring that may be cost effective and feasible in low resource settings.

methodsThis was a retrospective review of research site monitoring reports covering a period of four years.

resultsThe monitoring was conducted by the Uganda National Council for Science and Technology, the National Drug Authority and the National HIV/AIDS Research and Ethics Committee over the period 2007 to 2010.The monitoring team was usually three members comprising of two experts in research ethics and an assistant. A total of 28 site monitoring visits covering 40 research projects were reviewed. 25% of the site monitoring reports revealed violation of the regulatory requirement for valid ethical approval. 36% of the site reports showed some instances of informed consent violation, 28% showed violation of the rights and welfare of research participants, 38% revealed that sites did not report SAEs to regulatory authorities and many sites lacked adequate GCP and GCLP. However, most of the sites monitored had adequate facilities to conduct the respective studies and good working practices.

conclusionThis model employed by the monitoring teams to evaluate research compliance is effective in auditing ethical practice. Compliance monitoring is feasible and affordable in a resource limited setting. Research protocol non compliance is still a major problem in Uganda, and there is need for a pro-active approach to this vice by all stake holders if ethical conduct of research is to be achieved.

Indexed as

Clinical ProtocolsClinical Trials Data Monitoring CommitteesClinical Trials as TopicCommunity-Based Participatory ResearchEthics, ResearchFeasibility StudiesGuideline AdherenceHuman ExperimentationHumansResearch PersonnelRetrospective StudiesUganda

Identifiers

PMID23738971
PMCPMC3683324
OpenAlexW2057552235

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.