ArticleBMC medical ethics2026
Structural characteristics of research ethics committees in Japan and their relevance to regulatory science: a nationwide descriptive study.
Article in BMC medical ethics, 2026. 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
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundResearch ethics committees (RECs) and institutional review boards provide independent ethical oversight of health-related research. In Japan, the Pharmaceuticals and Medical Devices Agency (PMDA) increasingly conducts regulatory science (RS) research, which aims to generate scientific evidence to support regulatory decision-making. However, nationwide REC structures in Japan, and their alignment with the needs of RS oversight, have not been described.
methodsWe conducted a nationwide cross-sectional descriptive study using publicly available data from the Research Ethics Review Committee Reporting System of Japan (June 5, 2024). Committee size, gender composition, and members' professional expertise were analyzed by institution type. We compared these findings with structural requirements in Japanese regulations and guidelines. In addition, we conducted a complementary literature-based analysis of PMDA-affiliated RS research using PubMed. Major Medical Subject Headings (MeSH) terms were examined to identify dominant research areas and to contextualize the REC structure within the current landscape of RS research.
resultsA total of 2,604 RECs comprising 26,786 members were identified nationwide. The mean committee size was 10.3. Overall, committees commonly included multiple lay members, with 68.0% of institutions having at least two public representatives. In contrast, a substantial gender imbalance was observed, with 70.1% of committee members being male across all institutional categories. Committee composition varied by institution type. Analysis of MeSH terms in PMDA-affiliated RS research publications showed frequent focus on regulatory review, pharmacovigilance, advanced biomedical technologies, and clinical trial methodology.
conclusionsJapanese RECs were characterized by variation in committee size, occupational composition, and lay representation, while substantial gender imbalance persisted. Variations in committee composition reflected institutional differences in research characteristics. In the context of RS research, REC structures that incorporate relevant expertise alongside diverse perspectives may help inform discussions on ethical review practices.
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.