ArticleBMC medical ethics2022
Professional and academic profile of the Brazilian research ethics committees.
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 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed, 6 citations in OpenAlex.
- Interdisciplinary Representation in Research Ethics Committees: Implications for Nursing and Research Governance.Nursing & health sciences · 2026Article
- Association of Concurrent Clusters of Physical Inactivity and Unhealthy Lifestyle Habits with Common Mental Disorders among Primary Healthcare Workers: Insights from a large sample cross-sectional analysis in Brazil.Safety and health at work · 2025Article
- Ethics Committees: Structure, Roles, and Issues.Journal of Korean medical science · 2023Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundBrazil is among the sixteen countries that conducts the most clinical trials in the world. It has a system to review research ethics with human beings made up by the National Commission on Research Ethics (CONEP) and 779 Research Ethics Committees (RECs), in 2017. The RECs are supposed to follow the same rules regarding their membership, although the RECs that review Social Science and Humanities (SSH) researches must respect Resolution 510/16. There are Brazilian RECs that review SSH and clinical trials. This study aimed to analyze the academic professional profile of the members of the CONEP and Brazilian RECs, their adequacy to the norms, and the challenges faced by the REC's Chairs to compose their membership.
methodsAll 779 Brazilian RECs' chairs are invited to fill in a questionnaire informing academic and professional background of the RECs members, and 92 answered. However, eight were excluded for having sent an incomplete questionnaire, leaving a total of 84 participants. The variables were described by absolute and relative frequency. The Chi-square test and ANOVA was used to analyze regional differences related difficulties to compose the committee. The significance level was 95%.
resultsThe results showed a predominance of members from the biomedical area (57%), while 33% were members of the Social Sciences and Humanities and 5.5% were community representatives. As for the academic degree, there were (45.2%) PhD and (27.9%) masters. The divergences in relation to the guidelines result from the difficulties of having participants in some areas and the little interest in the work carried out by the committees.
conclusionThe RECs are partially adequate to the norms and their performance may be compromised by the low participation of community representatives. The organization of REC's specifics to review biomedical research could improve the ethical review process, ensuring a membership more qualified for these protocols.
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.