ArticleNagoya journal of medical science2021
The status of central ethical reviewing and challenges regarding its introduction to non-interventional studies in Japan.
Article in Nagoya journal of medical science, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
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
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
In 2018, we conducted a study on 121 ethics review committee offices in Japan to examine the state of "central review" in non-interventional studies and discern any challenges regarding its introduction. Of the 452 offices that were invited to participate, 121 responded (26.8% response rate), and 35 (28.9%) had records of furnishing contracting agreements with ethical reviews by other research institutions. The merits of central reviewing include easing the burden on ethics review committees, improving the quality level and consistency of ethical reviews, and enhancing the efficiency in conducting them. The demerits include increased administrative overheads and work for researchers, such as preparing application forms and checking institutional requirements, and a lack of clarity regarding who is responsible for conducting the research, which makes it is less desirable for institutions to have their own ethics review committees. This study revealed that the comprehensive introduction of central review in non-interventional studies continues to encounter many hurdles, and promoting central review requires overcoming these challenges one at a time. The Ethical Guidelines for Medical and Health Research Involving Human Subjects will be revised in 2021 to require central review as a part of ethical reviews for non-interventional studies. In the future, central reviews of non-interventional studies will need to be of high quality and conducted efficiently, and this will require research institutions to utilize relevant central review guidelines and checklists.
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.