ArticleThe American journal of bioethics : AJOB2018
The Emergence of Clinical Research Ethics Consultation: Insights From a National Collaborative.
Article in The American journal of bioethics : AJOB, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 17 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
17 citing papers in PubMed.
- Ethical Issues Conducting Research During War and Violent Conflict: A Review.Developing world bioethics · 2026Review
- "Who are you going to call?:" Research ethics consultation directors' perspectives on barriers and facilitators.Journal of clinical and translational science · 2025Article
- Research Ethics for Behavior Analysts in Practice.Behavior analysis in practice · 2023Review
- Current landscape of research ethics consultation services: National survey results.Journal of clinical and translational science · 2023Article
- Optimizing Ethics Engagement in Research: Learning from the Ethical Complexities of Studying Opioid Use in Pregnancy.The Journal of law, medicine & ethics : a journal of the American Society of Law, Medicine & Ethics · 2022Article
- Creating a Research Ethics Consultation Service: Issues to Consider.Ethics & human research · 2021Article
- Health care ethics programs in U.S. Hospitals: results from a National Survey.BMC medical ethics · 2021Article
- Ethical Challenges in COVID-19 Biospecimen Research: Perspectives From Institutional Review Board Members and Bioethicists.Mayo Clinic proceedings · 2021Review
- Researchers' views on, and experiences with, the requirement to obtain informed consent in research involving human participants: a qualitative study.BMC medical ethics · 2020Article
- Awareness of Jordanian Investigators About the Importance of Ethics Review Committees: A Pilot Study.Science and engineering ethics · 2020Article
- The Responsibility to Recontact Research Participants after Reinterpretation of Genetic and Genomic Research Results.American journal of human genetics · 2019Article
- The Value in Doing Something.Critical care medicine · 2019Article
- Research ethics consultation: an attempt and 5-year experience in a Japanese University Hospital.BMC research notes · 2018Article
- Beyond Open Communication: A Call for Partnership Between Clinical Ethics and Research Ethics Committees.The American journal of bioethics : AJOB · 2018Article
- Resolving authorship disputes by mediation and arbitration.Research integrity and peer review · 2018Article
- The Challenges of Incorporating Research Ethics Consultation Into Institutional Human Subjects Protections Programs.The American journal of bioethics : AJOB · 2018Article
- Article
Corrections and comments
- Commented on by
- Commented on by
- Commented on by
- Commented on by
- Commented on by
- Commented on by
- Commented on by
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
Abstract
The increasing complexity of human subjects research and its oversight has prompted researchers, as well as institutional review boards (IRBs), to have a forum in which to discuss challenging or novel ethical issues not fully addressed by regulations. Research ethics consultation (REC) services provide such a forum. In this article, we rely on the experiences of a national Research Ethics Consultation Collaborative that collected more than 350 research ethics consultations in a repository and published 18 challenging cases with accompanying ethical commentaries to highlight four contexts in which REC can be a valuable resource. REC assists: 1) investigators before and after the regulatory review; 2) investigators, IRBs, and other research administrators facing challenging and novel ethical issues; 3) IRBs and investigators with the increasing challenges of informed consent and risk/benefit analysis; and 4) in providing flexible and collaborative assistance to overcome study hurdles, mediate conflicts within a team, or directly engage with research participants. Institutions that have established, or plan to establish, REC services should work to raise the visibility of their service and engage in open communication with existing clinical ethics consult services as well as the IRB. While the IRB system remains the foundation for the ethical review of research, REC can be a valuable service for investigators, regulators, and research participants aligned with the goal of supporting ethical research.
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.