ArticlePloS one2024
Evaluating research ethics committees in Vietnam and Laos: Results of a validated self-assessment tool.
Article in PloS one, 2024. 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.
- Safety, Sedative, and Anxiolytic Evaluation of MECS Hard Capsules Using In Silico and In Vivo Approaches.ACS omega · 2026Article
- The Functioning of Ethics Committees in Kazakhstan: Results and Recommendations.Materia socio-medica · 2024Article
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.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThere is an increase in human subject research in developing countries and conducting them in an ethical manner depends on the research ethics oversight in these countries. The purpose of this study is to evaluate the operational, financial, and educational characteristics of research ethics committees (RECs) at institutions in Vietnam and Laos.
methodsA validated self-assessment tool designed to assess nine major characteristics of RECs was translated into Vietnamese and Laotian. The translated surveys were delivered to and completed by representatives from RECs at institutions in Vietnam and Laos. The surveys were collected, translated back into English, and scored. The data was analyzed to identify potential areas of strength and areas for improvement.
resultsThe mean survey score for the 19 RECs surveyed was 165.3 out of a maximum of 200 points with a standard deviation of 22.9. Committees scored the highest in the review of specific protocol items (95.6%), submission arrangements and materials (89.5%), and the policies referring to review procedures (85.6%) domains. RECs scored the lowest in the resources domain (65.5%), with only 26.3% of committees having an annual budget. Nearly all RECs have standard operating procedures (94.7%) and policies for disclosing conflicts of interest (89.5%). Most committees use prior ethics training as a criterion to select REC chairs (78.9%) and members (73.7%), with the majority of committees requiring a training course in ethics (76.5%). 68.4% of committees have continuing education in ethics for members and only 42.1% of committees have a budget for member training.
conclusionThis study demonstrated that RECs in Vietnam and Laos have strong foundational review processes for research protocols. Important areas of improvement include improved institutional oversight, financial and administrative resources, and the continued ethics education for current committee members.
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.