Observational studyBMC medical ethics2025
Evaluation of the first standardized registry of approved research studies by the research ethics committees in Ecuador.
Observational study in BMC medical ethics, 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
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundEthical regulation of biomedical research is essential to safeguard the rights and well-being of participants. In Ecuador, Research Ethics Committees (RECs) have undergone progressive growth. This study describes and evaluates the performance of the RECs of Ecuador using the first standardized registry of approved research studies implemented by the Ministry of Public Health.
methodsAn observational, descriptive, and retrospective study was conducted using administrative records corresponding to the first year of implementation of the First Standardized Registry of Approved Research Studies (September 2021-October 2022). All functional RECs and approved research projects were included, characterizing variables related to geographical distribution, institutional affiliation, researcher profiles, study type, review modality, response times, and protocol follow-up.
resultsA total of 957 projects approved by 21 RECs were evaluated. Of these, 52% were concentrated in Quito, and 62% were affiliated with higher education institutions. Most studies were observational (96%), with a predominance in Medicine and Nursing (63%), followed by Psychology (15%) and Sociology (10%). Geographical distribution revealed a high concentration in Azuay (52%) and Pichincha (43%). Only 3% of the projects had a unique identification code, 40% involved vulnerable populations, and 9% used biological samples. The average waiting time to obtain a resolution was 31 days (95% CI: 28.5-34.2).
conclusionsDespite regulatory advancements and the implementation of the First Standardized Registry of Approved Research Studies, challenges persist in terms of decentralization, operational efficiency, and follow-up. Optimizing the regulatory framework, strengthening RECs training, and fostering public-private collaboration are crucial to consolidating a robust and adaptable ethical system capable of addressing emerging challenges.
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.