ArticleInternational health2020
Experiences of research ethics committee members and scientists of the research protocol review process in Uganda: a case study.
Article in International health, 2020. 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.
- Awareness, knowledge, attitudes, and practices toward health research ethics and research ethics committees among healthcare postgraduate students, faculty, and professionals in The Gambia.Research ethics · 2026Article
- Health Data Sciences and Cardiovascular Disease in Africa: Needs and the Way Forward.Current atherosclerosis reports · 2024Review
- Cross-border data sharing through the lens of research ethics committee members in sub-Saharan Africa.PloS one · 2024Article
- Strengthening ethics committees for health-related research in sub-Saharan Africa: a scoping review.BMJ open · 2022Article
- Spotlight on global health research.International health · 2020Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundWe investigated how relevant and responsive scientists and research ethics committee (REC) members considered the research protocol review processes for health research practice in Uganda.
methodsInterviews were conducted with five scientists and five REC members. Data were analysed thematically.
resultsHow much to compensate for time, the amount of study information shared with volunteers and sample storage for future unknown research were areas of concern for REC members. Delays in getting feedback concerned scientists.
conclusionsResearchers and REC members need to hold regular discussions to ensure the review process is relevant and responsive.
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.