Evidence map›Paper›PMID 37325583›Full record

ArticlePerspectives in clinical research

An audit of institutional ethics committee queries raised after initial project submission by a single research department at a tertiary referral center in India.

Jeffrey Pradeep Raj, Unnati Saxena, Nithya Jaideep Gogtay, Sandeep B Bavdekar, Urmila Mukund Thatte

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Perspectives in clinical research. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
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

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

5 authors.

Jeffrey Pradeep RajDepartment of Clinical Pharmacology, Seth GS Medical College and KEM Hospital, Mumbai, Maharashtra, India.
Unnati SaxenaDepartment of Clinical Pharmacology, Seth GS Medical College and KEM Hospital, Mumbai, Maharashtra, India.
Nithya Jaideep GogtayDepartment of Clinical Pharmacology, Seth GS Medical College and KEM Hospital, Mumbai, Maharashtra, India.
Sandeep B BavdekarDepartment of Paediatrics, Surya Children's Hospital, Mumbai, Maharashtra, India.
Urmila Mukund ThatteDepartment of Clinical Pharmacology, Seth GS Medical College and KEM Hospital, Mumbai, Maharashtra, India.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Introduction: The institutional ethics committees (IECs) raise queries following protocol reviews. The quality of these queries would be a useful metric to assess how well the IEC executes its fundamental role of protecting participants. Methods: Queries received after the initial review and replies sent by a single research department were evaluated. A content analysis was done to identify the domains and categories of queries. We categorized these queries as administrative, ethics related, and scientific. The impact of each query in improving the science or safeguarding the rights and safety of research participants (ethics) was evaluated by two authors of this manuscript: one affiliated and the other nonaffiliated to the institute. Kappa statistics were used to evaluate for agreement between the two. Results: A total of 13 studies (investigator-initiated studies [IISs]: 7 and pharmaceutical industry-sponsored studies [PSSs]: 6) formed the final sample size for analysis. The total number of queries was 364 (IIS: 106 and PSS: 258; Conclusions: We found that approximately 25% of the queries raised by the IEC were redundant. It is our opinion that this redundancy could have been channeled into greater focus on scientific and ethical aspects of the protocol. Ongoing dialog between investigators and ethics committees may help address this. Perspectives between the affiliated and the unaffiliated investigators with regard to the relevance of queries were grossly different.

Indexed as

Auditcommentsinstitutional ethics committeeperspectivesqueries

Identifiers

PMID37325583
PMCPMC10267993

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-SA
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.