ArticleJournal of empirical research on human research ethics : JERHRE2025
Topography of Human Subjects Research Ethics in Uzbekistan: Analysis Using the Emanuel Benchmarks.
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. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
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
Emanuel et al. (2004) proposed eight ethical benchmarks to assess the ethical integrity of human participants' research in low- and middle-income countries: collaborative partnership, social value, scientific validity, fair participant selection, favorable risk-benefit ratio, independent review, informed consent, and respect for recruited participants and their communities. We conducted a retrospective, descriptive analysis of 67 doctoral research proposals submitted between 2016 and 2019 to the Tashkent Institute of Postgraduate Medical Education in Uzbekistan.ResultsWhile all protocols addressed social value (67/67) and most demonstrated scientific validity (53/67) and collaborative partnership (40/67), far fewer adequately addressed fair participant selection (12/67), favorable risk-benefit ratio (3/67), independent review (3/67), informed consent (4/67), or respect for communities (3/67).ConclusionThis is the first empirical study to apply the Emanuel framework to doctoral research in Uzbekistan. The findings underscore the need for more systematic integration of these benchmarks into national ethics oversight and academic review procedures.
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.