ReviewEJIFCC2020
Research Ethics Committees in Laboratory Medicine.
Review in EJIFCC, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Evaluation of health laboratory ethical compliance among laboratory practitioners in Kinondoni District, Tanzania.BMC health services research · 2025Article
- 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
1 author.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Biomedical research that involves human subjects requires compliance with ethical principles and guidelines. The ethical and scientific standards of research have been thoroughly discussed by international ethical guidelines and declarations. Compliance with these ensures the autonomy, dignity and well-being of research subjects; as well as the integrity and credibility of research results. Research ethics committees (RECs) are mandated to ensure that research proposals are scientifically sound and ethical. In this review, we define RECs in laboratory medicine and describe their role based on the examination of the requirements of ethical research; discuss particular ethical issues that arise in laboratory medicine research using biological samples, what challenges they face and how they can ensure the quality of their review. RECs need to be put into a broader framework that ensures institutional governance with continuous evaluation and auditing that ensure the quality of ethical review.
Indexed as
Identifiers
33376468PMC7745300What 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.