ReviewEthics & human research
Human Research Protections during Emergencies: An Integrative Review.
Review in Ethics & human research. 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
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The increasing frequency and severity of various types of societal and humanitarian emergencies-e.g., infectious disease outbreaks and natural disasters-creates unique challenges for conducting human subjects research in these settings. These challenges include regulatory review complexities, maintaining research rigor while increasing efficiency, protecting vulnerable populations, and managing risks. Despite these obstacles, research is critical for improving responses to societal and humanitarian emergencies and protecting public health. Our integrative review examines the use of emergency or rapid response review boards, including ethics reviews and institutional review boards (IRBs), in emergency contexts. An integrative literature search addressed rapid emergency human subjects research reviews across disasters, infectious disease emergencies, humanitarian crises, and public health emergencies. Articles were selected based on pre-defined criteria, including empirical research, operational action, and theoretical discussion. Data were abstracted and synthesized to identify common themes, gaps, and recommendations. Findings underscore the need for robust IRB support before and during emergencies. Recommendations include pre-approved protocols, enhanced training, and increased funding and resources for emergency IRB support. Future research should systematically implement these concepts and assess their effectiveness across diverse emergency contexts.
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.