ReviewJournal of clinical and translational science2025
Characteristics of research review boards in the context of community-academic settings: A scoping review.
Review in Journal of clinical and translational science, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- Taking a Community-Partnered Approach to Developing Culturally-Responsive Mental Health Screening Materials for African-Born Adults in the United States.Behavioral sciences (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Article
- Institutional transformations for authentic community engaged and participatory research.Journal of clinical and translational science · 2026Article
- "No research about us, without us:" a qualitative study to engage with community research advisory boards in the urban community.Frontiers in public health · 2026Article
- A case study of enhancing bidirectional feedback between research programs and an institutional community engagement advisory board.Journal of clinical and translational science · 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
9 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Community advisory boards (CABs) have traditionally been formed in the context of discrete projects and served to support community protections within the confines of the associated investigation(s). However, as funding bodies increasingly prioritize health equity, CABs have shifted - evolving into long-running organizations with broader scope and value. An emerging cornerstone of these project-independent boards (PICABs) has been the formation of "Research Review Boards" (RRBs). While unified in their goal of promoting community protection and representation in health research, it is unknown to what degree RRBs differ on key features including membership, leadership, service reach, and - crucially - impact. A scoping review was conducted according to PRISMA-ScR guidelines to analyze current practices for RRBs. Of screened articles (
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.