Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33231115›Full record

ArticleAccountability in research2021

Standards of evidence for institutional review board decision-making.

David B Resnik

Open access · greenAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Accountability in research, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
3citing papers in PubMed
2.3field-weighted citation impact, top 10% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

3 citing papers in PubMed, 25 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Review
  2. Article
  3. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

1 author at 1 institution in 1 country.

David B ResnikNational Institute of Environmental Health Sciences, National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, MD, USA.
National Institutes of Health · US

Funding

Ethical, social, and legal issues in environmental health researchZIAES102646 · NIEHS · NATIONAL INSTITUTE OF ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH SCIENCES · PI RESNIK, DAVID · 2009 to 2025
$1.8M
Intramural NIH HHS ZIA ES102646
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

A standard of evidence is a rule or norm pertaining to the type or amount of evidence that is required to prove or support a conclusion. Standards of evidence play an important role in institutional review board (IRB) decision-making, but they are not mentioned in the federal research regulations. In this article, I examine IRB standards of evidence from a normative, epistemological perspective and argue that IRBs should rely on empirical evidence for making decisions, but that other sources of evidence, such as intuition, emotion, and rational reflection, can also play an important role in decision-making, because IRB decisions involve an ethical component which is not reducible to science. I also argue that an IRB should approve a study only if it has clear and convincing evidence that the study meets all the approval criteria and other relevant, ethical considerations; and that for studies which expose healthy volunteers to significant risks, an IRB should require that evidence be more than clear and convincing as a condition for approval. Additional empirical research is needed on how IRBs use evidence to make decisions and how standards of evidence influence IRB decision-making at the individual and group level.

Indexed as

Ethics Committees, ResearchIntuitionHumansdecision-makingempirical evidenceInstitutional review boardsintuitionstandards of evidence

Identifiers

PMID33231115
PMCPMC8184880
OpenAlexW3106870432

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceTDM
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.