ArticleThe Journal of international medical research2019
Perspectives of non-specialists on the potential to serve as ethics committee members.
Article in The Journal of international medical research, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Ethics review of big data research: What should stay and what should be reformed?BMC medical ethics · 2021Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveIn Japan, under the new Clinical Trials Act pertaining to investigator-initiated clinical trials that came into effect on 1 April 2018, review boards should review proposed clinical trials while considering written opinions from specialists. Additionally, involvement of non-specialists is mandatory, and attention is being placed on their effective contributions. This study was performed to determine representative key issues with which to promote these contributions.
methodsThis qualitative study was conducted in 2018 using a focus group interview of six non-specialists regarding perspectives on clinical research itself and research ethics committees.
resultsFor perspectives on clinical research itself, 33 codes were established and sorted into 2 categories and 6 subcategories relating to ambivalence toward clinical research. For perspectives on research ethics committees, 54 codes were established and sorted into 3 categories and 10 subcategories relating to the theme "knowledge and an environment that promotes non-specialist members' participation." One notable result was the willingness of participants to obtain details about a study should they be selected.
conclusionsThe results suggest that detailed explanation of a particular study would encourage non-specialist members to participate in a clinical research review committee. Education aimed at non-specialist participation should therefore be considered in future studies.
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.