ArticleBMC medical ethics2015
Innovations in research ethics governance in humanitarian settings.
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.
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
24 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Ebola virus disease in pregnancy: a systematic review and meta-analysis.Transactions of the Royal Society of Tropical Medicine and Hygiene · 2022Pooled it
- Ethical Issues Conducting Research During War and Violent Conflict: A Review.Developing world bioethics · 2026Review
- Prevalence and predictors of modern contraceptive method utilization among married couples in the pastoralist communities of Fentale district, Eastern Ethiopia.Scientific reports · 2025Article
- Enhancing Reciprocity, Equity and Quality of Ethics Review for Multisite Research During Public Health Crises: The Experience of the COVID-19 Clinical Research Coalition Ethics Working Group.The Journal of law, medicine & ethics : a journal of the American Society of Law, Medicine & Ethics · 2023Article
- Strengthening research ethics governance and regulatory oversight in Central America and the Dominican Republic in response to the COVID-19 pandemic: a qualitative study.Health research policy and systems · 2022Article
- Boosting ethics review capacity in public health emergency situations: Co-creation of a training model for French-speaking research ethics committees.Tropical medicine & international health : TM & IH · 2022Review
- Pandemic preparedness and responsiveness of research review committees: lessons from review of COVID-19 protocols at KEMRI Wellcome Trust Research Programme in Kenya.Wellcome open research · 2022Article
- Improving research ethics review and governance can improve human health.Journal of the Royal Society of Medicine · 2021Article
- Building an Ethics Framework for COVID-19 Resource Allocation: The How and the Why.Journal of bioethical inquiry · 2020Article
- Guillain-Barré syndrome in times of pandemics.Journal of neurology, neurosurgery, and psychiatry · 2020Article
- Exempting low-risk health and medical research from ethics reviews: comparing Australia, the United Kingdom, the United States and the Netherlands.Health research policy and systems · 2020Article
- A systematic literature review of the ethics of conducting research in the humanitarian setting.Conflict and health · 2020Article
- Documenting the Impact of Conflict on Women Living in Internally Displaced Persons Camps in Sri Lanka: Some Ethical Considerations.Health and human rights · 2019Article
- Improving health information systems during an emergency: lessons and recommendations from an Ebola treatment centre in Sierra Leone.BMC medical informatics and decision making · 2019Article
- Ethics preparedness: facilitating ethics review during outbreaks - recommendations from an expert panel.BMC medical ethics · 2019Article
- Research and Global Health Emergencies: On the Essential Role of Best Practice.Public health ethics · 2018Article
- Earthquakes to Floods: A Scoping Review of Health-related Disaster Research in Low- and Middle-income Countries.PLoS currents · 2018Article
- Using digital health to enable ethical health research in conflict and other humanitarian settings.Conflict and health · 2018Review
- Familiar ethical issues amplified: how members of research ethics committees describe ethical distinctions between disaster and non-disaster research.BMC medical ethics · 2017Article
- Research Ethics Governance in Times of Ebola.Public health ethics · 2017Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
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
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.