ArticleBMC medical ethics2026
Development of an evaluation indicator system for the quality of science and technology ethics review committees: a Chinese study based on the structure-process-outcome framework.
Article in BMC medical ethics, 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.
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
Abstract
backgroundScience and technology drive research progress but also introduce growing risks, value conflicts and ethical challenges. Science and technology ethics review committees (STERCs) serve as key institutional mechanisms to ensure that scientific activities comply with ethical principles and professional norms. However, the establishment of STERCs worldwide remains at an early developmental stage, and structured, systematic criteria for evaluating their quality are largely absent. This study aims to develop a structured evaluation indicator system for STERCs and to explore its preliminary applicability.
methodsThis study conducted a literature review and qualitative interviews to develop a preliminary evaluation indicator system, which was organized using Donabedian's three-dimensional framework of structure, process, and outcome. The final indicator system was established after two rounds of expert consultation. The preliminary self-assessment data were collected from 80 medical institutions and 19 companies across 14 cities in Hunan Province.
resultsBoth rounds of the Delphi consultation achieved a 100% response rate. The mean authoritative coefficient (Cr) was 0.900, while familiarity (Cs) and judgment basis (Ca) scores were 0.867 and 0.933, respectively. Kendall's coefficient of concordance (Kendall's W) was 0.300 (p < 0.001) in round one and 0.213 (p < 0.001) in round two. The final evaluation indicator system consisted of three first-level indicators, nine second-level indicators and 52 third-level indicators.
conclusionsThis study proposes a unified framework for science and technology ethics review, integrating activities involving humans, animals, and other potential technological risks into a single evaluation system. The indicator system supports institutional self-assessment, promotes standardization, and guides continuous improvement. Preliminary findings indicate its feasibility and internal consistency, but these results should be interpreted cautiously due to the limited sample scope and reliance on self-reported data.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic 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 Socratic graph.