ReviewHealth research policy and systems2024
A transformative solution to build effective, transparent, and resilient "fit-for-purpose" national health research ethics systems.
Review in Health research policy and systems, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 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
6 citing papers in PubMed.
- Article
- Decision Letters from a Kyrgyz Research Ethics Committee (2018-2022): An Empirical Review of Transparency, Rigor, and Communication.Journal of empirical research on human research ethics : JERHRE · 2026Article
- Digital platforms for ethics review: a mini review.Frontiers in digital health · 2026Review
- Evaluation of the first standardized registry of approved research studies by the research ethics committees in Ecuador.BMC medical ethics · 2025Observational
- National research ecosystems: protecting populations and building health security worldwide.The Lancet. Global health · 2025Review
- Going paperless: the strengths and limitations of electronic research ethics information management system in a health training institution in Tanzania.BMC health services research · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
Abstract
The current research ethics review systems are composed of isolated institutional Research Ethics Committees (RECs) that develop their own standard operating procedures (SOPs), templates and so on, with low adoption of digital solutions to manage submission and review processes. This poses several challenges, such as delays, higher costs, and hindering multi-site research. We propose an online national research ethics platform that all RECs can use, with common review processes and documentation requirements following national policy. The system will scale up adoption of digital solutions to all RECs. It will reduce administrative burden and harmonize review procedures. It will also obviate the need for separate and isolated interventions such as national REC registries or clinical trial registries, as these can be generated as transactional outputs of the system. The harmonized procedures and possibility of single submission will facilitate multi-site research. Sharing of resources and expertise among RECs on the platform will enhance resilience. An e-EC system developed in India and a Regional Health research portal developed by the WHO South-East Asia office offer proof of concepts to demonstrate the feasibility of developing and using such systems. The proposed solution is ambitious but feasible. Developing the proposed system will be a vital cost-effective investment in national health infrastructure to strengthen the research ecosystem and accelerate delivery of improved healthcare innovations by reducing unnecessary delays in conducting research. To maximize benefits, concurrent efforts are needed to build researchers' capacity and enhance the quality and efficiency of human reviews of the research proposals by REC.
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.