ArticlePloS one2015
A Scoping Review of Empirical Research Relating to Quality and Effectiveness of Research Ethics Review.
Article in PloS one, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 28 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
28 citing papers in PubMed.
- 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
- The Impact of "Ethics Creep" on Research, Teaching and Learning in the Social Sciences and Humanities: A Survey of Canadian Researchers' Experience with Research Ethics Boards.Canadian review of sociology = Revue canadienne de sociologie · 2026Article
- A Scoping Review of Empirical Research on Research Ethics Board Membership and Expertise.Journal of empirical research on human research ethics : JERHRE · 2025Article
- Does the emotional burden of participating in trauma-related surveys discourage future participation? A population-based study.European journal of psychotraumatology · 2025Article
- Examining Practices Related to Ethical Aspects in eHealth Evaluation Research: Protocol for a Scoping Review.JMIR research protocols · 2025Article
- Enablers and Barriers of Research Engagement Among Clinician Researchers: Nursing, Allied Health and Medical Professionals.Journal of multidisciplinary healthcare · 2024Article
- Article
- Protecting human subjects participating in research.American journal of translational research · 2023Article
- Aligning clinical research ethics with community-engaged and participatory research in the United States.Frontiers in public health · 2023Review
- Sims and Vulnerability: On the Ethics of Creating Emulated Minds.Science and engineering ethics · 2022Article
- Performance of IRBs in China: a survey on IRB employees and researchers' experiences and perceptions.BMC medical ethics · 2022Article
- Institutional Review Board Use of Outside Experts: What Do We Know?Ethics & human research · 2022Review
- Protecting the public from the adverse effects of confused research ethics.Journal of the Royal Society of Medicine · 2021Article
- Strengthening ethics committees for health-related research in sub-Saharan Africa: a scoping review protocol.BMJ open · 2021Article
- How ethics committees and requirements are structuring health research in the Philippines: a qualitative study.BMC medical ethics · 2021Article
- Article
- Article
- When IRBs Say No to Participating in Research about Single IRBs.Ethics & human research · 2020Article
- Measuring IRB Regulatory Compliance: Development, Testing, and Use of the National Cancer Institute StART Tool.Journal of empirical research on human research ethics : JERHRE · 2019Article
- A scoping review of reporting 'Ethical Research Practices' in research conducted among refugees and war-affected populations in the Arab world.BMC medical ethics · 2018Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundTo date there is no established consensus of assessment criteria for evaluating research ethics review.
methodsWe conducted a scoping review of empirical research assessing ethics review processes in order to identify common elements assessed, research foci, and research gaps to aid in the development of assessment criteria. Electronic searches of Ovid Medline, PsychInfo, and the Cochrane DSR, ACP Journal Club, DARE, CCTR, CMR, HTA, and NHSEED, were conducted. After de-duplication, 4234 titles and abstracts were reviewed. Altogether 4036 articles were excluded following screening of titles, abstracts and full text. A total of 198 articles included for final data extraction.
resultsFew studies originated from outside North America and Europe. No study reported using an underlying theory or framework of quality/effectiveness to guide study design or analyses. We did not identify any studies that had involved a controlled trial--randomised or otherwise--of ethics review procedures or processes. Studies varied substantially with respect to outcomes assessed, although tended to focus on structure and timeliness of ethics review. DISCUSSION: Our findings indicate a lack of consensus on appropriate assessment criteria, exemplified by the varied study outcomes identified, but also a fragmented body of research. To date research has been largely quantitative, with little attention given to stakeholder experiences, and is largely cross sectional. A lack of longitudinal research to date precludes analyses of change or assessment of quality improvement in ethics review.
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.