ReviewFrontiers in digital health2026
Digital platforms for ethics review: a mini review.
Review in Frontiers in digital health, 2026. 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.
- Article
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
This mini review examines the emerging use of digital platforms for ethics review (DPER) and the extent to which research ethics committees (RECs) are prepared for digital transformation and operational autonomy. Drawing on a structured analysis of peer-reviewed studies published between 2013 and 2024, the review synthesises the existing research on DPER and examines reported challenges, successes, and implementation recommendations associated with their adoption. In this context, digital autonomy refers to RECs' readiness to conduct ethics review processes through dedicated digital platforms, supported by adequate infrastructure, stakeholder engagement, institutional capacity, and appropriate data protection and security measures. Findings indicate that digitalisation efforts primarily focus on improving administrative efficiency, protocol tracking, and communication workflows, with reported improvements in processing times and documentation management. However, the literature reveals limited attention to broader system-level governance considerations, including regulatory alignment, infrastructure readiness, data security, and institutional capacity. Across the included studies, there is minimal critical engagement with how DPER reshape accountability structures, transparency mechanisms, and decision-making authority within RECs. The review highlights emerging areas requiring further investigation. This includes governance and regulatory preparedness, variability in institutional digital capacity, and the implications of increasing automation in ethics review processes. Overall, while DPER show promise for strengthening research oversight, the evidence base remains limited in scope and depth. Further empirical and conceptual research is needed to assess institutional and national readiness and to ensure that digital transformation supports, rather than undermines, ethical governance in RECs.
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.