Research drives innovation and advances clinical knowledge, and research assistants (RAs) play a critical yet often underrecognized role in facilitating research processes. Their contributions to streamlining ethical approval procedures warrant closer examination. This study aimed to assess the effectiveness of RAs in supporting ethical approval processes for academic urological research.

A retrospective analysis was performed on 71 ethical approval submissions made by urological researchers from January 2011 to February 2020. Manuscripts were categorized into two groups: those assisted by RAs (n=66) and those managed solely by investigators (n=5). Comparative analyses included demographic characteristics, approval outcomes, frequency of ethical review comments, and the time required for approval.

Demographic characteristics and submission portal types were similar between groups. Ethical approval rates did not differ significantly (P > 0.999). However, manuscripts prepared by investigators alone had a higher incidence of ethical review comments compared to those assisted by RAs (100% vs. 72.73%; P = 0.320). Additionally, submissions without RA assistance experienced longer average approval times (62 days vs. 50 days; P = 0.412), although not statistically significant.

Research assistants substantially enhance the efficiency of the ethical approval process by reducing revision comments and shortening approval duration. Their involvement represents a valuable asset in academic urological research, underscoring the importance of recognizing and supporting their contributions.