ArticleJournal of empirical research on human research ethics : JERHRE2025
A Scoping Review of Empirical Research on Research Ethics Board Membership and Expertise.
Article in Journal of empirical research on human research ethics : JERHRE, 2025. 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
6 authors.
Funding
Abstract
REB membership and its local idioculture play a key role in the decisions made. Little evidence exists as to what composition of membership expertise and training creates the conditions for a board to be most effective. This scoping review of the empirical research on REB membership and expertise aims to outline what evidence has been gathered and what gaps exist. Our main research question was: What empirical research exists on how research ethics boards (REBs) identify and train members and ensure they have adequate expertise to review research protocols? We found a small and diverse body of literature from around the world. We summarized findings in four themes: scientific expertise, ethical, legal and regulatory training and expertise, diversity of identity and perspectives, and engagement with research participant perspectives. Studies reviewed identified issues for all aspects of membership expertise and training. Further work is needed to establish best practices.
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.