ArticleAsian bioethics review2024
Ethics Review of Biomedical Research in Uzbekistan: Policy and Program Gaps.
Article in Asian bioethics review, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- 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
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.
Funding
Abstract
We describe the national health research ethics review system of Uzbekistan and identify policy and program gaps that impede the protection of human research subjects. We find that the National Ethic Committee (NEC), functioning at the national level, is solely responsible for conducting research ethics review. There is little evidence that regional ethics committees work as intended, and there is no research ethics review at medical institutes and research centers even though they conduct CDTs (clinical drug trials). There is no national policy for the ethical review of non-clinical trials. We recommend the establishment of institutional review boards (IRBs) at medical institutes and research centers while at the same time building capacity at the national level to oversee and support the research ethics review system of the entire country.
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.