ArticleBMC medical ethics2019
Research approvals iceberg: helping it melt away.
Article in BMC medical ethics, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 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
5 citing papers in PubMed, 6 citations in OpenAlex.
- An umbrella protocol for the clinical evaluation of diagnostics in infectious disease.Bulletin of the World Health Organization · 2026Article
- Why are organisational approvals needed for low-risk staff studies in the UK? Procedures, barriers, and burdens.BMC health services research · 2024Article
- Non-COVID-19 UK clinical trials and the COVID-19 pandemic: impact, challenges and possible solutions.Trials · 2023Article
- Characterization of Factors Predicting a Favorable Opinion of Research Applications Submitted for an Ethical Review Process.Frontiers in medicine · 2022Article
- Response to Correspondence from Kolstoe and colleagues concerning our paper entitled, Research approvals iceberg: How a 'low-key' study in England needed 89 professionals to approve it and how we can do better.BMC medical ethics · 2019Article
Corrections and comments
- Commented on by
- Comment on
Authors and funding
2 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundIn their paper "Research approvals iceberg: how a 'low-key' study in England needed 89 professionals to approve it and how we can do better" Petrova and Barclay highlight concerns with the health research regulatory environment in the UK. DISCUSSION: As long-standing chairs of NHS research ethics committees, researchers, and also academics in research ethics, we are also often frustrated with the regulatory process in the UK. However, we think that Petrova and Barclay's analysis is misleading because it conflates research ethics with governance and funding processes, thus failing to adequately distinguish between the national coordinating function of the Health Research Authority, local research governance processes, and interactions with research sponsors and/or the Clinical Research Network.
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.