ArticleHealth research policy and systems2014
Varying ethics rules in clinical research and routine patient care--research ethics committee chairpersons' views in Finland.
Article in Health research policy and systems, 2014. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- Health data privacy through homomorphic encryption and distributed ledger computing: an ethical-legal qualitative expert assessment study.BMC medical ethics · 2022Article
- Protecting the public from the adverse effects of confused research ethics.Journal of the Royal Society of Medicine · 2021Article
- Research ethics committees in the regulation of clinical research: comparison of Finland to England, Canada, and the United States.Health research policy and systems · 2016Article
- Actors involved in the regulation of clinical research: comparison of Finland to England, Canada, and the USA.Health research policy and systems · 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
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundTo present empirical data on how the variation in regulating clinical research and patient care was perceived in Finland between 2009 and 2012.
methodsNotes of interviews with 22 research ethics committee (REC) chairpersons were analyzed to identify whether differences in the regulation of clinical research and patient care were addressed. REC chairpersons' opinions on three imaginary cases of clinical research projects challenging current research ethics rules (vignettes) were requested with a questionnaire; 18 of the 22 interviewed chairpersons responded.
resultsBased on REC chairpersons' interviews, the differences between care and research regulation were not considered important issues in Finland. In the vignettes, REC chairpersons' assumptions on how their REC would decide varied in regard to allowing research without informed consent, while solutions that are not allowed by current law were even anticipated. Mostly, but not always, the chairpersons' own personal view agreed with their REC.
conclusionsThe distinction between care and research regulation has not been publicly challenged by Finnish RECs, even though it is a challenge when research relevant to health care is carried out. There is a need for debate and changes in laws and practices.
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.