Evidence map›Paper›PMID 28220723›Full record

ArticleJournal of empirical research on human research ethics : JERHRE2017

Ethical Issues Surrounding the Use of Modern Human Remains for Research in South Africa.

N Briers, J J Dempers

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of empirical research on human research ethics : JERHRE, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
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

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

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

2 authors.

N Briers1 Stellenbosch University, South Africa.
J J Dempers1 Stellenbosch University, South Africa.

Funding

ARESA - Advancing Research Ethics training in Southern AfricaR25TW008981 · FIC · STELLENBOSCH UNIVERSITY · PI MOODLEY, KEYMANTHRI · 2011 to 2015
$1.2M
FIC NIH HHS R25 TW008981
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Chapter 8 of the South African National Health Act 61 of 2003 (NHA) that deals with the donation of human tissue was promulgated in 2012. The new Act is perceived to impose restrictions on low-risk research involving human remains. This study aimed to identify the issues raised by a research ethics committee (REC) when reviewing protocols where human remains are used as data source. REC minutes from 2009 to 2014 were reviewed, and issues raised by the committee were categorized. In total, 127 protocols submitted to the committee over 6 years involved human remains. Queries relating to science (22.2%) and administration (18.9%) were the most common, whereas queries relating to legal issues constituted only 10.2%. Ethical issues centered on informed consent regarding sensitive topics such as HIV, DNA, and deceased children. The change in legislation did not change the number or type of legal issues identified by the REC.

Indexed as

Bioethical IssuesBody RemainsEthical ReviewEthics Committees, ResearchLegislation, MedicalBiomedical ResearchChildDNAEthics, ResearchHIV InfectionsHumansInformed ConsentSouth AfricaTissue and Organ ProcurementDNAdevelopinghuman remainslegislationNational Health Actresearch ethicsresearch ethics committeereview processSouth Africa

Identifiers

PMID28220723
PMCPMC13199860

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.