ReviewPerspectives in clinical research
Competencies and operations of research ethics committee members and the protection of research participants: A scoping review.
Review 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
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Ethical oversight is essential since clinical research involves animal and human participants. Despite being established to uphold moral standards, the effectiveness of ethics committees (ECs) in protecting participants remains uncertain. This scoping review examines EC members' competency and operational performance. We searched PubMed, Scopus, and Web of Science for papers assessing EC members' competence and operational performance from 2013 to May 2024 in compliance with PRISMA guidelines. After removing duplicates and irrelevant studies, 16 publications were reviewed. Findings were compared across countries and institutions to identify patterns and areas requiring improvements in EC. Out of 16 articles, 6 (37.5%) exclusively assessed the competency in knowledge, attitude, skills, and practices, while 10 (62.5%) papers evaluated the competencies related to EC members' structure, functioning, and procedural performance. The current study report shows that knowledge scores range from 11.3% to 62.5% across the six studies. Most studies suggested that standardized, periodic training should be for EC members. Proficiency in reviewing complex study designs ranged from 14% to 53%, and substantial gaps were noted in understanding ethical principles, particularly among ECs with heavier workloads despite accreditation. On-site monitoring identified frequent ethical breaches, including missing documentation and incomplete serious adverse event records. Access to formal ethics education was limited to approximately 25% of members, with 20% of ECs reporting inadequate staffing and limited resources. In addition, delays in the communication of EC decisions are observed. The findings highlight the need for standardized ethics training, national oversight mechanisms, and adequate resources to improve the effectiveness of ECs in making the right decisions and enhancing their competency in execution.
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.