Evidence map›Paper›PMID 41694727›Full record

ArticlePerspectives in clinical research

Continuous review for ethical conduct of clinical trial-are the ethics committees complying?

Mrunalini Vinay Kalikar, Ganesh Dakhale

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Perspectives in clinical research. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

2 authors.

Mrunalini Vinay KalikarDepartment of Pharmacology, Government Medical College, Nagpur, Maharashtra, India.
Ganesh DakhaleDepartment of Pharmacology, AIIMS, Nagpur, Maharashtra, India.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Ethics committees (ECs) play a crucial role in safeguarding clinical trial participants through ongoing review beyond initial protocol approval. Although regulations require periodic monitoring of study progress, risk, protocol adherence, and informed consent processes, evidence from India indicates significant gaps in implementation.. Challenges such as limited resources, insufficient training, and lack of structured monitoring hinder effective continuous review. Strengthening EC capacity and accountability is essential to ensure ethical conduct and participant safety in ongoing clinical research.

Indexed as

Continuous reviewethics committeemonitoring

Identifiers

PMID41694727
PMCPMC12900396

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-SA
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.