ArticleHealth research policy and systems2020
Exempting low-risk health and medical research from ethics reviews: comparing Australia, the United Kingdom, the United States and the Netherlands.
Article in Health research policy and systems, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 28 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
28 citing papers in PubMed.
- Building capacity from within: qualitative evaluation of a training program aimed at upskilling healthcare workers in delivering an evidence-based implementation approach.Translational behavioral medicine · 2022Trial
- Early-Career Nurse Researchers' Perspectives on Research Ethics Review in China: A Qualitative Descriptive Study.International nursing review · 2026Article
- A Remotely Delivered Weight Management Service to Support Existing Obesity Services in the UK National Health Service: Preliminary Findings From an Early-Stage Service Evaluation.JMIR formative research · 2025Article
- Semaglutide and Tirzepatide in a Remote Weight Management Program: 12-Month Retrospective Observational Study.JMIR formative research · 2025 · on this mapObservational
- Findings from the 'Ask Me About PrEP' HIV Pre-Exposure Prophylaxis Awareness Programme in England.Journal of evaluation in clinical practice · 2025Article
- A Remotely Delivered GLP-1RA-Supported Specialist Weight Management Program in Adults Living With Obesity: Retrospective Service Evaluation.JMIR formative research · 2025Article
- Coronavirus-two infection among adults: A scoping review of literature published in 2023-24.Pakistan journal of medical sciences · 2025Review
- 'Prevalence, experience and awareness of substandard and falsified medicines among the public and healthcare professionals in Jordan'.BMJ global health · 2025Article
- Taxonomic and functional profiling of the vulvar microbiome indicates variations related to ecological signatures, aging, and health status.Frontiers in microbiology · 2025Article
- Development and implementation of digital solutions in healthcare: insights from the Australian tertiary hospital landscape.Frontiers in digital health · 2025Article
- Article
- Small Airways Disease Affects Aerosol Deposition in Children with Severe Asthma: A Functional Respiratory Imaging Study.Journal of aerosol medicine and pulmonary drug delivery · 2024Article
- Enablers and barriers to rotavirus vaccine coverage in Assam, India- A qualitative study.Vaccine: X · 2024Article
- Children with severe asthma have substantial structural airway changes on computed tomography.ERJ open research · 2024Article
- Data-driven sudden cardiac arrest research in Europe: Experts' perspectives on ethical challenges and governance strategies.Resuscitation plus · 2023Review
- Artificial intelligence and medical research databases: ethical review by data access committees.BMC medical ethics · 2023Article
- Developing Consensus-Based Guidelines for Case Reporting in Aesthetic Medicine: Enhancing Transparency and Standardization.Aesthetic surgery journal. Open forum · 2023Article
- Expert Opinion Guidance on the Detection of Early Connective Tissue Diseases in Interstitial Lung Disease.Open access rheumatology : research and reviews · 2023Article
- Inclusion of older adults and reporting of consent processes in randomized controlled trials in the emergency department: A scoping review.Journal of the American College of Emergency Physicians open · 2022Article
- Community paediatricians' experience of joint working with child and adolescent mental health services: findings from a British national survey.BMJ paediatrics open · 2022Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundDisproportionate regulation of health and medical research contributes to research waste. Better understanding of exemptions of research from ethics review in different jurisdictions may help to guide modification of review processes and reduce research waste. Our aim was to identify examples of low-risk human health and medical research exempt from ethics reviews in Australia, the United Kingdom, the United States and the Netherlands.
methodsWe examined documents providing national guidance on research ethics in each country, including those authored by the National Health and Medical Research Council (Australia), National Health Service (United Kingdom), the Office for Human Research Protections (United States) and the Central Committee on Research Involving Humans (the Netherlands). Examples and types of research projects exempt from ethics reviews were identified, and similar examples and types were grouped together.
resultsNine categories of research were exempt from ethics reviews across the four countries; these were existing data or specimen, questionnaire or survey, interview, post-marketing study, evaluation of public benefit or service programme, randomised controlled trials, research with staff in their professional role, audit and service evaluation, and other exemptions. Existing non-identifiable data and specimens were exempt in all countries. Four categories - evaluation of public benefit or service programme, randomised controlled trials, research with staff in their professional role, and audit and service evaluation - were exempted by one country each. The remaining categories were exempted by two or three countries.
conclusionsExamples and types of research exempt from research ethics reviews varied considerably. Given the considerable costs and burdens on researchers and ethics committees, it would be worthwhile to develop and provide clearer guidance on exemptions, illustrated with examples, with transparent underpinning rationales.
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.