Evidence map›Paper›PMID 42137516›Full record

ReviewPerspectives in clinical research

Competencies and operations of research ethics committee members and the protection of research participants: A scoping review.

Preeti Vivekanand Kalel, Seeta Devi

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

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.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing 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

1 citing paper in PubMed.

  1. Article
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.

Preeti Vivekanand KalelSymbiosis School for Online and Digital Learning, Symbiosis International (Deemed University), Pune, Maharashtra, India.
Seeta DeviDepartment of Obstetrics and Gynaecological Nursing, Symbiosis College of Nursing (SCON), Symbiosis International (Deemed University), Pune, Maharashtra, India.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

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

Assessmentclinical researchcompetenceethics committeefunctioningmemberstraining

Identifiers

PMID42137516
PMCPMC13171137

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.