↓ Skip to main content

The high costs of getting ethical and site-specific approvals for multi-centre research

Overview of attention for article published in Research Integrity and Peer Review, December 2016
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (85th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
20 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
28 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
21 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
The high costs of getting ethical and site-specific approvals for multi-centre research
Published in
Research Integrity and Peer Review, December 2016
DOI 10.1186/s41073-016-0023-6
Pubmed ID
Authors

Adrian G. Barnett, Megan J. Campbell, Carla Shield, Alison Farrington, Lisa Hall, Katie Page, Anne Gardner, Brett G. Mitchell, Nicholas Graves

Abstract

Multi-centre studies generally cost more than single-centre studies because of larger sample sizes and the need for multiple ethical approvals. Multi-centre studies include clinical trials, clinical quality registries, observational studies and implementation studies. We examined the costs of two large Australian multi-centre studies in obtaining ethical and site-specific approvals. We collected data on staff time spent on approvals and expressed the overall cost as a percent of the total budget. The total costs of gaining approval were 38 % of the budget for a study of 50 centres (mean cost AUD $6960 per site) and 2 % for a study of 11 centres (mean cost AUD $2300 per site). Seventy-five and 90 % of time was spent on repeated tasks, respectively, and many time-consuming tasks, such as reformatting documents, did nothing to improve the study design or participant safety. Improvements have been made to the ethical approval application system, but more gains could be made without increasing risks of harm to research participants. We propose that ethical review bodies and individual sites publish statistics on how long they take to process approvals which could then be nationally benchmarked.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 20 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 21 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 21 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 4 19%
Student > Ph. D. Student 3 14%
Student > Postgraduate 2 10%
Student > Doctoral Student 1 5%
Student > Bachelor 1 5%
Other 4 19%
Unknown 6 29%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 7 33%
Philosophy 2 10%
Nursing and Health Professions 2 10%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 2 10%
Social Sciences 2 10%
Other 1 5%
Unknown 5 24%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 11. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 13 November 2021.
All research outputs
#3,252,707
of 25,554,853 outputs
Outputs from Research Integrity and Peer Review
#107
of 133 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#59,585
of 421,260 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Research Integrity and Peer Review
#3
of 3 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,554,853 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 87th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 133 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 76.8. This one is in the 20th percentile – i.e., 20% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 421,260 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 85% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 3 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one.