ArticleMateria socio-medica2024
The Functioning of Ethics Committees in Kazakhstan: Results and Recommendations.
Article in Materia socio-medica, 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
10 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Sixteen RECs were randomly selected from various institutions across Kazakhstan, representing both public and private sectors and covering biomedical and socio-behavioral research reviews. Objective: This research addresses a critical knowledge gap by providing empirical data on REC operations in Kazakhstan, facilitating a better understanding of how these committees align with international ethical standards and best practices. Furthermore, by situating our findings within the broader context of REC performance in LMICs, we aim to highlight specific challenges unique to Kazakhstan and propose evidence-based recommendations. Methods: Data were collected using a culturally adapted, semi-structured questionnaire based on a validated self-assessment tool. Descriptive statistics were used to analyze the data. Results: The overall average score for the RECs was 71.9% out of a possible 100%, indicating generally effective functioning but highlighting significant areas needing improvement. Strengths included well-established organizational aspects, diverse membership, and adequate educational training. However, weaknesses were identified in the thoroughness of protocol evaluations and resource allocation, with low scores in "Review of Specific Protocol Items" (33.7%) and "REC Resources" (56.2%). Additionally, 38.5% of RECs were not registered with national authorities, underscoring the need for improved regulatory oversight. Conclusion: While RECs in Kazakhstan demonstrate strengths in organizational structure and member training, critical gaps exist in protocol review processes and resource support. Targeted interventions - such as enhancing training programs for REC members, increasing funding and resources, and establishing a national accreditation system - are recommended to improve the quality of ethical oversight in research. Strengthening these areas will ensure comprehensive protocol reviews and better protection of research participants.
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.