ArticleHealth research policy and systems2016
Research ethics committees in the regulation of clinical research: comparison of Finland to England, Canada, and the United States.
Article in Health research policy and systems, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 15 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
15 citing papers in PubMed, 32 citations in OpenAlex.
- Bioethics committee approvals in multicentre laryngology research across Europe: the European Laryngological Society's consensus on legal basis and quality assurance.European archives of oto-rhino-laryngology : official journal of the European Federation of Oto-Rhino-Laryngological Societies (EUFOS) : affiliated with the German Society for Oto-Rhino-Laryngology - Head and Neck Surgery · 2026Article
- Evaluation of the first standardized registry of approved research studies by the research ethics committees in Ecuador.BMC medical ethics · 2025Observational
- Article
- Artificial intelligence and medical research databases: ethical review by data access committees.BMC medical ethics · 2023Article
- Ethics Committees: Structure, Roles, and Issues.Journal of Korean medical science · 2023Review
- Strengthening ethics committees for health-related research in sub-Saharan Africa: a scoping review.BMJ open · 2022Article
- The role of nursing members in research ethics committees in Japan.Nagoya journal of medical science · 2022Article
- Protecting the public from the adverse effects of confused research ethics.Journal of the Royal Society of Medicine · 2021Article
- Does teaching medical ethics ensure good knowledge, attitude, and reported practice? An ethical vignette-based cross-sectional survey among doctors in a tertiary teaching hospital in Nepal.BMC medical ethics · 2021Article
- Ethical and research governance approval across Europe: Experiences from three European palliative care studies.Palliative medicine · 2020Article
- Clinical Ethics Consultation in the Transition Countries of Central and Eastern Europe.Science and engineering ethics · 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
- Rethinking the Career Landscape for Nicotine and Tobacco Trainees and Early Career Professionals.Nicotine & tobacco research : official journal of the Society for Research on Nicotine and Tobacco · 2019Article
- Building health research systems: WHO is generating global perspectives, and who's celebrating national successes?Health research policy and systems · 2016Article
- Lessons from studies of medication reduction in psychosis: giving participants accurate information about risk in psychiatric research trials.Journal of psychiatry & neuroscience : JPNArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
1 author at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThe aim of this paper is to compare common features and variation in the work of research ethics committees (RECs) in Finland to three other countries - England, Canada, the United States of America (USA) - in the late 2000s.
methodsSeveral approaches and data sources were used, including semi- or unstructured interviews of experts, documents, previous reports, presentations in meetings and observations. A theoretical framework was created and data from various sources synthesized.
resultsIn Finland, RECs were regulated by a medical research law, whereas in the other countries many related laws and rules guided RECs; drug trials had specific additional rules. In England and the USA, there was a REC control body. In all countries, members were voluntary and included lay-persons, and payment arrangements varied. Patient protection was the main ethics criteria, but other criteria (research advancement, availability of results, payments, detailed fulfilment of legislation) varied. In all countries, RECs had been given administrative duties. Variations by country included the mandate, practical arrangements, handling of multi-site research, explicitness of proportionate handlings, judging scientific quality, time-limits for decisions, following of projects, role in institute protection, handling conflicts of interests, handling of projects without informed consent, and quality assurance research. The division of work between REC members and secretariats varied in checking of formalities. In England, quality assurance of REC work was thorough, fairly thorough in the USA, and not performed in Finland.
conclusionsThe work of RECs in the four countries varied notably. Various deficiencies in the system require action, for which international comparison can provide useful insights.
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.