Study need → ethics-committee suitability · live data
Describe your study — therapeutic area, study type / phase, geography, review model, approval timeline and consent language — and the ethics-review listings (IRBs, IECs and RECs) re-rank live by a transparent six-factor weighted estimate.
Match score · deterministic, rules-based — not AI
Your study
Factor weights · Σ 100
fixed
Therapeutic area
22
Study type / phase
20
Geography
18
Approval timeline
16
Review model
14
Language
10
Score = Σ factor credit (weights sum to 100). A factor nobody has recorded is held at half its weight — counted neither for the listing nor against it. CSV facets (therapeutic area, study type, country, language) use exact-token membership; an “Any” field is non-constraining and always counts as met. Fully transparent & reproducible — not a recommendation to engage; verify accreditation directly.
Match levels: Strong ≥ 75 · Good ≥ 50 · Partial ≥ 25 · Weak < 25.
8 organizations ranked across 0 active requirements
Illustrative data. Organization names are real ethics-review bodies; accreditation status, registration numbers, timelines, performance metrics and satisfaction scores are synthetic demonstration data — verify against official accreditation registries (AAHRPP, OHRP, FWA) before any engagement decision. Match scores are a deterministic, rules-based weighted estimate over illustrative seed data — not AI, and not a recommendation to engage or a determination of ethics-committee suitability; verify accreditation, capacity and pricing directly with each organization before selecting a review partner. CSV facets (therapeutic area, study type, country, language) match by exact token — “Phase I” never matches “Phase III”. Listings name real companies; the capability, capacity and quality values these scores read are illustrative seed data, not supplied or confirmed by the company named.