ReviewActa bio-medica : Atenei Parmensis2020
Ethics committees for clinical experimentation at international level with a focus on Italy.
Review in Acta bio-medica : Atenei Parmensis, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 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
7 citing papers in PubMed.
- Injectable Hyaluronic Acid and Amino Acids Complex for Pediatric Hard-to-Heal Wounds: A Prospective Case Series and Therapeutic Protocol.Children (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Article
- Ethical issues and the role of the ethics committees during COVID-19 research in pandemic era: a focus on an Italian ethics committee.Frontiers in public health · 2025Article
- Why not? Motivations for entering a volunteer register for clinical trials during the COVID-19 pandemic.European journal of clinical pharmacology · 2022Article
- Retrospective observational studies: Lights and shadows for medical writers.Acta bio-medica : Atenei Parmensis · 2022Review
- A next generation sequencing gene panel for use in the diagnosis of anorexia nervosa.Eating and weight disorders : EWD · 2022Article
- Revising the legislation of Ethics Committees to ease biomedical research in humans across the world: lessons from the COVID-19 emergency.Acta bio-medica : Atenei Parmensis · 2022Article
- Characterization of Factors Predicting a Favorable Opinion of Research Applications Submitted for an Ethical Review Process.Frontiers in medicine · 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
15 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Guiding legislation and associated bureaucracy for the ethical review of clinical trials observational studies and food related research play an important role in the competitiveness of a nation in the face of tough global competition to attract sponsors and investigators. This is of particular relevance in the case of multicentre trials and multidisciplinary research. Accordingly, in this report we tried to gather in-depth knowledge of the current role and practices of ethics committees nationwide in both clinical and research settings. This mini-review aims to describe the formulation and organization of ethical committees in Italy in order to provide a focus for deliberations on ethical issues in medical and scientific research in line with human rights, as set out in the European Union charter. Furthermore, we evaluated the impact of an institution's ethical committee intervention on reducing the time required to obtain an opinion from Research Ethics Committees by guiding investigators in addressing ethical issues in their proposed 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.