ArticleBMC medical ethics2022
Performance of IRBs in China: a survey on IRB employees and researchers' experiences and perceptions.
Article in BMC medical ethics, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed, 5 citations in OpenAlex.
- Development of an evaluation indicator system for the quality of science and technology ethics review committees: a Chinese study based on the structure-process-outcome framework.BMC medical ethics · 2026Article
- Analysis of factors influencing the organizational capacity of Institutional Review Boards In China: a crisp-set Qualitative Comparative Analysis based on 107 cases.BMC medical ethics · 2023Article
- Continuous quality improvement: reducing informed consent form signing errors.BMC medical ethics · 2023Article
- Ethical considerations for researchers developing and testing minimal-risk devices.Nature communications · 2023Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors at 3 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundPerformance evaluation is vital for IRB operations. As the number of IRBs and their responsibilities in reviewing and supervising clinical research grow in China, there is a significant need to evaluate their performances. To date, little research has examined IRB performance within China. The aim of this study was to ascertain the perspectives and experiences of IRB employees and researchers to (1) understand the current status of IRBs; (2) compare collected results with those of other countries; and (3) identify shortcomings to improve IRB performance.
methodsThis study was conducted in China from October 2020 to September 2021, using an online survey with the IRB-researcher assessment tool-Chinese version.
results757 respondents were included in the analysis and classified into IRB employees, researchers, or those who are both IRB employees and researchers. Overall, the score for an ideal IRB was significantly higher than that of an actual IRB. Compared to the US National Validation study, Chinese participants and American participants both agree and differ in their perspectives on the most and least important ideal items.
conclusionThis investigation provides a benchmark of the perceived performance of actual IRBs in China. IRBs in China can be precisely adjusted by targeting identified areas of weakness to improve their performances.
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.