Evidence map›Paper›PMID 26773561›Full record

ArticleTranslational research : the journal of laboratory and clinical medicine2016

On using ethical principles of community-engaged research in translational science.

Dmitry Khodyakov, Lisa Mikesell, Ron Schraiber, Marika Booth, Elizabeth Bromley

Open access · greenAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Translational research : the journal of laboratory and clinical medicine, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 30 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
30citing papers in PubMed
4.3field-weighted citation impact, top 6% 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

30 citing papers in PubMed, 50 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Trial
  2. Review
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Review
  6. Reporting checklists in neuroimaging: promoting transparency, replicability, and reproducibility.Neuropsychopharmacology : official publication of the American College of Neuropsychopharmacology · 2024
    Review
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Co-creation and engagement in a DNA integrity cohort study.Journal of clinical and translational science · 2023
    Article
  10. Review
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Review
  17. Article
  18. Article
  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

5 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.

Dmitry KhodyakovRAND Corporation, Santa Monica, Calif. Electronic address: Dmitry_Khodyakov@rand.org.
Lisa MikesellCommunication Department, School of Communication and Information, Institute for Health, Health Care Policy and Aging Research, Rutgers University, New Brunswick, NJ.
Ron SchraiberThe Well-Being Programs, Inc., Crestline, Calif.
Marika BoothRAND Corporation, Santa Monica, Calif.
Elizabeth BromleySemel Institute Center for Health Services and Society, Department of Psychiatry and Biobehavioral Sciences, University of California, Los Angeles; Desert Pacific MIRECC, West Los Angeles VA Healthcare Center, Los Angeles, Calif.
RAND Corporation · USRutgers, The State University of New Jersey · USWest Los Angeles College · US

Funding

The Impact of Partnerships with Community on Research IntegrityR21ES022093 · NIEHS · RAND CORPORATION · PI BROMLEY, ELIZABETH A, KHODYAKOV, DMITRY · 2012 to 2013
$451k
NIEHS NIH HHS R21 ES022093NIEHS NIH HHS R21ES022093
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The transfer of new discoveries into both clinical practice and the wider community calls for reliance on interdisciplinary translational teams that include researchers with different areas of expertise, representatives of health care systems and community organizations, and patients. Engaging new stakeholders in research, however, calls for a reconsideration or expansion of the meaning of ethics in translational research. We explored expert opinion on the applicability of ethical principles commonly practiced in community-engaged research (CEnR) to translational research. To do so, we conducted 2 online, modified-Delphi panels with 63 expert stakeholders who iteratively rated and discussed 9 ethical principles commonly used in CEnR in terms of their importance and feasibility for use in translational research. The RAND/UCLA appropriateness method was used to analyze the data and determine agreement and disagreement among participating experts. Both panels agreed that ethical translational research should be "grounded in trust." Although the academic panel endorsed "culturally appropriate" and "forthcoming with community about study risks and benefits," the mixed academic-community panel endorsed "scientifically valid" and "ready to involve community in interpretation and dissemination" as important and feasible principles of ethical translational research. These findings suggest that in addition to protecting human subjects, contemporary translational science models need to account for the interests of, and owe ethical obligations to, members of the investigative team and the community at large.

Indexed as

Community-Based Participatory ResearchFemaleHumansMaleTranslational Research, Biomedical

Identifiers

PMID26773561
PMCPMC4833614
OpenAlexW2219881364

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceTDM
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.