ArticlePerspectives in clinical research
Knowledge, attitude, and practices regarding assessment of risks and benefits of clinical research studies by ethics committee members in India: A questionnaire-based study.
Article in Perspectives in clinical research. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Ethics review of digital health research: Rethinking rights of participants.Perspectives in clinical researchArticle
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
Purpose: Balancing risks to research participants against benefits to science or future patients is the most challenging part of the Ethics Committee (EC) review process. Explicit guidance to conduct risk-benefit assessment (RBA) of research studies is not available in the guidelines and existing regulations. RBA, while reviewing research studies by ECs, is largely based on long-term clinical experience and tends to be subjective. This study was undertaken to capture knowledge, attitude, and practices (KAP) among ECs across India about the RBA of clinical research proposals. Materials and Methods: A cross-sectional, observational questionnaire-based study was conducted after obtaining approval from the Institutional EC. Members of registered ECs across India with a minimum 1-year of experience were approached to respond to a validated questionnaire regarding assessment of KAP of EC members about RBA; through direct contact or by sending Google Forms. Data were analyzed using descriptive statistics. Results: Of 114 participants, 90% agreed on the need to carry out RBA for every study. Eighty-nine percent stated that studies with vulnerable participants need more attention for RBA. Fifty-five percent of participants considered payment received for research as a benefit. Regarding types of potential risks in research, 35 (31%) precisely selected all five types of risks. For conducting RBA, five participants reported using a specific checklist, while others mentioned reference to the Indian Council for Medical Research, ICH-GCP, and EC SOPs. Conclusion: EC members were aware of concepts of risks and benefits and the need for RBA in clinical research. A few gaps were identified in the awareness and approaches followed.
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.