The technical review process involves an evaluation of the scientific merits of the research proposal and is a necessary part of the ethics review but can be done separately and ahead of the formal ethics evaluation. The aim of this paper is to determine the efficiency and quality of the technical review process of the Philippine General Hospital (PGH) Department of Medicine Research Office.

This is a cross-sectional study which involved retrieval of the technical review forms of protocols evaluated in the PGH Department of Medicine from the years 2018-2019, and then an evaluation of these metrics: timelines of the review process indicating efficiency, including time from (1) receipt of submission to receipt of reviewer (secretariat efficiency); (2) receipt of reviewer to first decision (reviewer metric); (3) initial receipt to final decision (total review time); and (4) number of re-submissions. To evaluate the quality of the reviews, the specific review findings in each part or section of the protocol were also extracted.

In the years 2018-2019, a total of 199 protocols underwent technical review, with one protocol having no further data after the submission so only 198 proposals were analyzed. Majority of the protocols or 139/198 (70.2%) were submitted only once and were approved without comments, while the remaining 59/198 (29.8%) were submitted twice for technical review (mode of 1, mean of 1.32). The protocols were sent to the reviewers within the same day of receipt 100% of the time. The time from receipt of submission to receipt of reviewer was within the same day and the time from receipt of reviewer to first decision (mean, standard deviation working days) was 10.52, 8.54 days, range 0-51 days. Around one-fourth (21.51%) of the protocols were returned to the secretariat beyond the 14-working day deadline. The time from second review of technical reviewer to return to secretariat was a mean, SD of 6.72, 6.45 days, with a range of 1 day to 36 days, and time from initial receipt to final decision was a mean of 16.16 days, SD 18.3 days, range 0-111 days. The most common reason for the delay was the failure of the author to resubmit the paper for the second review in 17/23 (74%), while the other reason was the long duration of the initial review by the reviewer in 6/23 (26%). Half of the protocols (49.5%) were returned without comments. Majority of the comments were on the methodology.

The technical review process is generally efficient with each step within the acceptable timelines. However, for 12% of the protocols, the over-all review process was still prolonged (>28 working days) because of the failure of the author to submit the paper for the second review in 74% of cases, and the long duration of the initial review in 26% of papers.