Evidence map›Paper›PMID 26626131›Full record

ArticleBMC medical ethics2015

Readiness of ethics review systems for a changing public health landscape in the WHO African Region.

Marion Motari, Martin Okechukwu Ota, Joses Muthuri Kirigia

Open access · goldAbstract 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 12 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
12citing papers in PubMed
2.3field-weighted citation impact, top 11% of its field
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

12 citing papers in PubMed, 19 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Trial
  2. Review
  3. Health Research Ethics in Southern Africa: Building Capacity and Cultivating Excellence.Journal of empirical research on human research ethics : JERHRE · 2025
    Article
  4. Article
  5. Review
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Review
  10. New ethical considerations in vaccine trials.Human vaccines & immunotherapeutics · 2017
    Article
  11. A time for new north-south relationships in global health.International journal of general medicine · 2017
    Article
  12. 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

3 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Marion MotariWorld Health Organization, Regional Office for Africa, Brazzaville, Congo. motarim@who.int.
Martin Okechukwu OtaWorld Health Organization, Regional Office for Africa, Brazzaville, Congo. otama@who.int.
Joses Muthuri KirigiaWorld Health Organization, Regional Office for Africa, Brazzaville, Congo. kirigiaj@who.int.
World Health Organization Regional Office for Africa · CG

Funding

World Health Organization 001
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundThe increasing emphasis on research, development and innovation for health in providing solutions to the high burden of diseases in the African Region has warranted a proliferation of studies including clinical trials. This changing public health landscape requires that countries develop adequate ethics review capacities to protect and minimize risks to study participants. Therefore, this study assessed the readiness of national ethics committees to respond to challenges posed by a globalized biomedical research system which is constantly challenged by new public health threats, rapid scientific and technological advancements affecting biomedical research and development, delivery and manufacture of vaccines and therapies, and health technology transfer.

methodsThis is a descriptive study, which used a questionnaire structured to elicit information on the existence of relevant national legal frameworks, mechanisms for ethical review; as well as capacity requirements for national ethics committees. The questionnaire was available in English and French and was sent to 41 of the then 46 Member States of the WHO African Region, excluding the five Lusophone Member States. Information was gathered from senior officials in ministries of health, who by virtue of their offices were considered to have expert knowledge of research ethics review systems in their respective countries.

resultsThirty three of the 41 countries (80.5 %) responded. Thirty (90.9 %) of respondent countries had a national ethics review committee (NEC); 79 % of which were established by law. Twenty-five (83.3 %) NECs had secretarial and administrative support. Over 50 % of countries with NECs indicated a need for capacity strengthening through periodic training on international guidelines for health research (including clinical trials) ethics; and allocation of funds for administrative and secretariat support.

conclusionsDespite the existing training initiatives, the Region still experiences a shortage of professionals trained in health research ethics/ethicists. Committees continue to face various capacity needs especially for evaluating clinical trials, for monitoring ongoing research, database management and for accrediting institutional ethics committees. Given the growing number of clinical trials involving human participants in the African Region, there is urgent need for supporting countries without NECs to establish them; capacity strengthening where they exist; and creation of a regional network and joint ethical review mechanisms, whose membership would be open to all NECs of the Region.

Indexed as

Ethics Committees, ResearchHealth PolicyAfricaBiomedical ResearchEthical ReviewEthics, ResearchGuidelines as TopicHumansInternationalityPublic HealthSurveys and QuestionnairesWorld Health Organization

Identifiers

PMID26626131
PMCPMC4667412
OpenAlexW2183497928

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.