ArticleJCO global oncology2026
Overcoming Logistical Barriers to Conducting Collaborative Clinical Research Between a High-Income Country and a Low- and Middle-Income Country.
Article in JCO global oncology, 2026. 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
11 authors.
Funding
Abstract
purposeBuilding equitable research collaborations between high-income countries (HICs) and low- and middle-income countries (LMICs) requires effective coordination among international ethical review committees, which is often logistically challenging. This case report presents the insights gained when acquiring ethical approval for a cervical cancer research program conducted jointly by the University of Pennsylvania and the University of Botswana.
methodsWe conducted a descriptive case study of the Ipabalele project, a 6-year HIC-LMIC partnership involving three complex research protocols that required approvals by multiple distinct ethical bodies. We analyzed various challenges affecting review procedures, timelines, and staffing. We then documented strategies employed in Ipabalele and other global initiatives to strengthen ethical review processes and build research capacity in LMICs.
resultsIn Ipabalele, ethical approvals were initially delayed by 2 years because of fragmented review processes with variable timelines and conflicting recommendations. Innovations to the process included centralizing institutional review board oversight within Botswana, implementing joint virtual meetings among review bodies, enhancing digital infrastructure, and streamlining research staffing and communication.
conclusionBy providing practical strategies, this study highlights how empowered local leadership, centralized review processes, joint review mechanisms, and intentional capacity building can overcome logistical barriers in multinational ethical review.
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.