ArticleBMC health services research2025
Going paperless: the strengths and limitations of electronic research ethics information management system in a health training institution in Tanzania.
Article in BMC health services research, 2025. 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.
- Article
- Assessing satisfaction and performance of the CUREC electronic submission system.BMC medical ethics · 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
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundOver the years, the processing of research proposals for ethical approvals have been done manually through a review of hard copies. Longer turn-around-time, increased financial costs to researchers and cumbersome submission processes are few of the challenges inherent to paper-based review of research proposals. This has necessitated the shift to electronic management of research proposals, Research Ethics Information Management Systems (REIMS). Still, the advantages of going paperless and inherent drawbacks remain unsubstantiated, hence the aim of this study.
methodsWe adopted a pre and post evaluation design using a qualitative approach, where 16 faculty members of the Muhimbili University of Health and Allied Sciences were interviewed. Participants were purposefully recruited to include only those who had been exposed to both the paper-based research ethics review system and REIMS. The faculty were stratified into two groups: researchers and research ethics committee members. Thematic analysis using inductive approach was used to develop and analyze gathered information.
resultsThe study unveiled the strengths and limitations of REIMS as two important themes. The strengths included convenience in the use of the system and improved records management. The limitations included demand for reliable ICT resources and limited reviewer-researcher interaction.
conclusionThe findings of this study underscore the strengths and limitations of going paperless and employment of REIMS. Institutions aspiring to adapt the system can learn from this experience and devise ways to overcome the limitations. We recommend system automation, strengthening the institutional capacity and further studies to be conducted on the adoptability of REIMS especially in resource limited settings.
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.