ArticlePerspectives in clinical research2014
Research ethics committees: Need for harmonization at the national level, the global and Indian perspective.
Article in Perspectives in clinical research, 2014. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 10 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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
10 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 14 citations in OpenAlex.
- Barriers to and facilitators of interventions to counter publication bias: thematic analysis of scholarly articles and stakeholder interviews.BMC health services research · 2014Pooled it
- Ethics review of multi-centre trials in India: a survey of researchers and ethics committee members on perspectives, challenges, and opportunities.BMC medical ethics · 2026Article
- Evaluation of the first standardized registry of approved research studies by the research ethics committees in Ecuador.BMC medical ethics · 2025Observational
- Ethical review procedures in international internet-based intervention studies.Internet interventions · 2022Article
- Record linkage of population-based cohort data from minors with national register data: a scoping review and comparative legal analysis of four European countries.Open research Europe · 2021Article
- A Study of Assessing Errors and Completeness of Research Application Forms Submitted to Instituitional Ethics Committee (IEC) of a Tertiary Care Hospital.Journal of clinical and diagnostic research : JCDR · 2016Article
- 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
- Ethics Committees in Ayurvedic PG institutions: Losing opportunities of making an impact.Journal of Ayurveda and integrative medicineArticle
- Ethics Committees in India: Past, present and future.Perspectives in clinical researchReview
- Ethics committees and the changed clinical research environment in India in 2016: A perspective!Perspectives in clinical researchArticle
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
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Ethics committee (EC) organization and standardization is an important aspect of clinical research. There is a healthy trend worldwide to register and/or accredit research ECs reviewing clinical research. This article tries to focus on the existing model of ECs worldwide, as against the Indian backdrop. The article reviews literature, journals, websites, and studies conducted in 10 different countries and outlines the working model of ECs in these countries. The challenges faced during the ethical review, especially in case of multicenter trials, have been identified. A solution has been suggested to overcome these challenges, and to ensure the overall smooth functioning of clinical trials. The article proposes the development of national and regional central ECs to counter the current drawbacks in the ethical review mechanisms in India.
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.