ArticleJournal of empirical research on human research ethics : JERHRE2014
Legal and ethical values in the resolution of research-related disputes: how can IRBS respond to participant complaints?
Article in Journal of empirical research on human research ethics : JERHRE, 2014. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- "[T]he most precise and thorough understanding of the situation we are struggling to change": re-capturing emancipatory disability research.Frontiers in sociology · 2025Review
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
Under US federal regulations, participants providing informed consent must receive information regarding whom to contact in case of a research-related injury or complaint. Although informed consent processes routinely direct participants to contact institutional review boards (IRBs) with questions or concerns, there has been little empirical study of the ways in which IRBs act to resolve participants' research-related complaints. This article explores available literature on participant complaints, considers the responsibilities of IRBs in dispute resolution, and outlines a research agenda. As a case study, this review considers disputes arising from HIV/AIDS research, focusing on novel issues arising from biomedical HIV prevention trials.
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.