Evidence map›Paper›PMID 25890281›Full record

ArticleBMC medical ethics2015

Innovations in research ethics governance in humanitarian settings.

Doris Schopper, Angus Dawson, Ross Upshur, Aasim Ahmad, Amar Jesani, Raffaella Ravinetto, Michael J Segelid, Sunita Sheel, Jerome Singh

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in BMC medical ethics, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 24 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
24citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
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

24 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Ebola virus disease in pregnancy: a systematic review and meta-analysis.Transactions of the Royal Society of Tropical Medicine and Hygiene · 2022
    Pooled it
  2. Review
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Review
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Guillain-Barré syndrome in times of pandemics.Journal of neurology, neurosurgery, and psychiatry · 2020
    Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Review
  19. Article
  20. 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

9 authors.

Doris SchopperMedical Faculty, University of Geneva, Geneva, Switzerland. Doris.Schopper@unige.ch.
Angus DawsonCentre for Biomedical Ethics, School of Health and Population Sciences, University of Birmingham, Birmingham, UK. a.j.dawson@bham.ac.uk.
Ross UpshurDepartment of Family and Community Medicine, University of Toronto, Toronto, Canada. ross.upshur@gmail.com.
Aasim AhmadThe Kidney Centre, Karachi, Pakistan. aasimahmad@gmail.com.
Amar JesaniAnusandhan Trust, Mumbai, India. amar.jesani@gmail.com.
Raffaella RavinettoDepartment of Clinical Sciences, Institute of Tropical Medicine, Antwerp, Belgium. rravinetto@itg.be.
Michael J SegelidCentre for Human Bioethics, Monash University, Clayton, Australia. michael.selgelid@monash.edu.
Sunita SheelIndependent researcher in global health and bioethics, Pune, India. sunita.bandewar@utoronto.ca.
Jerome SinghCentre for the AIDS Programme of Research in South Africa (CAPRISA), Durban, South Africa. singhj9@ukzn.ac.za.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundMédecins Sans Frontières (MSF) is one of the world's leading humanitarian medical organizations. The increased emphasis in MSF on research led to the creation of an ethics review board (ERB) in 2001. The ERB has encouraged innovation in the review of proposals and the interaction between the ERB and the organization. This has led to some of the advances in ethics governance described in this paper. DISCUSSION: We first update our previous work from 2009 describing ERB performance and then highlight five innovative practices: • A new framework to guide ethics review • The introduction of a policy exempting a posteriori analysis of routinely collected data • The preapproval of "emergency" protocols • General ethical approval of "routine surveys" • Evaluating the impact of approved studies. The new framework encourages a conversation about ethical issues, rather than imposing quasi-legalistic rules, is more engaged with the specific MSF research context and gives greater prominence to certain values and principles. Some of the innovations implemented by the ERB, such as review exemption or approval of generic protocols, may run counter to many standard operating procedures. We argue that much standard practice in research ethics review ought to be open to challenge and revision. Continued interaction between MSF researchers and independent ERB members has allowed for progressive innovations based on a trustful and respectful partnership between the ERB and the researchers. In the future, three areas merit particular attention. First, the impact of the new framework should be assessed. Second, the impact of research needs to be defined more precisely as a first step towards being meaningfully assessed, including changes of impact over time. Finally, the dialogue between the MSF ERB and the ethics committees in the study countries should be enhanced. SUMMARY: We hope that the innovations in research ethics governance described may be relevant for other organisations carrying out research in fragile contexts and for ethics committees reviewing such research.

Indexed as

AltruismEthical ReviewEthics Committees, ResearchEthics, ResearchOrganizationsPolicyResearchDeveloping CountriesHumansInternational CooperationPhysicians

Identifiers

PMID25890281
PMCPMC4351683

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.