Literature DB >> 17074825

Consistency in decision making by research ethics committees: a controlled comparison.

E Angell1, A J Sutton, K Windridge, M Dixon-Woods.   

Abstract

There has been longstanding interest in the consistency of decisions made by research ethics committees (RECs) in the UK, but most of the evidence has come from single studies submitted to multiple committees. A systematic comparison was carried out of the decisions made on 18 purposively selected applications, each of which was reviewed independently by three different RECs in a single strategic health authority. Decisions on 11 applications were consistent, but disparities were found among RECs on decisions on seven applications. An analysis of the agreement between decisions of RECs yielded an overall measure of agreement of kappa = 0.286 (95% confidence interval -0.06 to 0.73), indicating a level of agreement that, although probably better than chance, may be described as "slight". The small sample size limits the robustness of these findings. Further research on reasons for inconsistencies in decision making between RECs, and on the importance of such inconsistencies for a range of arguments, is needed.

Mesh:

Year:  2006        PMID: 17074825      PMCID: PMC2563290          DOI: 10.1136/jme.2005.014159

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Med Ethics        ISSN: 0306-6800            Impact factor:   2.903


  6 in total

1.  The ethics of research ethics committees.

Authors:  Jon Nicholl
Journal:  BMJ       Date:  2000-04-29

2.  Responses of local research ethics committees to a study with approval from a multicentre research ethics committee.

Authors:  A L Lux; S W Edwards; J P Osborne
Journal:  BMJ       Date:  2000-04-29

3.  Variations in experience in obtaining local ethical approval for participation in a multi-centre study.

Authors:  N A Maskell; E L Jones; R J O Davies
Journal:  QJM       Date:  2003-04

4.  The ethics and governance of medical research: what does regulation have to do with morality?

Authors:  Richard E Ashcroft
Journal:  New Rev Bioeth       Date:  2003-11

5.  Are ethical committees reliable?

Authors:  M Hotopf; S Wessely; N Noah
Journal:  J R Soc Med       Date:  1995-01       Impact factor: 5.344

6.  Research ethics committees: differences and moral judgement.

Authors:  Sarah J L Edwards; Richard Ashcroft; Simon Kirchin
Journal:  Bioethics       Date:  2004-09       Impact factor: 1.898

  6 in total
  11 in total

1.  A taxonomy of multinational ethical and methodological standards for clinical trials of therapeutic interventions.

Authors:  Carol M Ashton; Nelda P Wray; Anna F Jarman; Jacob M Kolman; Danielle M Wenner; Baruch A Brody
Journal:  J Med Ethics       Date:  2011-03-23       Impact factor: 2.903

2.  Changes in the institutional review board submission process for multicenter research over 6 years.

Authors:  Monika Pogorzelska; Patricia W Stone; Elizabeth Gross Cohn; Elaine Larson
Journal:  Nurs Outlook       Date:  2010 Jul-Aug       Impact factor: 3.250

3.  Empirical assessments of clinical ethics services: implications for clinical ethics committees.

Authors:  Laura Williamson
Journal:  Clin Ethics       Date:  2007-12-01

4.  The role of research ethics committees in making decisions about risk.

Authors:  Allison Ross; Nafsika Athanassoulis
Journal:  HEC Forum       Date:  2014-09

5.  Procedure versus process: ethical paradigms and the conduct of qualitative research.

Authors:  Kristian Pollock
Journal:  BMC Med Ethics       Date:  2012-09-27       Impact factor: 2.652

6.  Clinicians' perspectives of parental decision-making following diagnosis of a severe congenital anomaly: a qualitative study.

Authors:  Robyn Lotto; Lucy K Smith; Natalie Armstrong
Journal:  BMJ Open       Date:  2017-06-06       Impact factor: 2.692

7.  A Scoping Review of Empirical Research Relating to Quality and Effectiveness of Research Ethics Review.

Authors:  Stuart G Nicholls; Tavis P Hayes; Jamie C Brehaut; Michael McDonald; Charles Weijer; Raphael Saginur; Dean Fergusson
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2015-07-30       Impact factor: 3.240

8.  An ethics safe harbor for international genomics research?

Authors:  Edward S Dove; Bartha M Knoppers; Ma'n H Zawati
Journal:  Genome Med       Date:  2013-11-22       Impact factor: 11.117

9.  Shortcomings of protocols of drug trials in relation to sponsorship as identified by Research Ethics Committees: analysis of comments raised during ethical review.

Authors:  Marlies van Lent; Gerard A Rongen; Henk J Out
Journal:  BMC Med Ethics       Date:  2014-12-10       Impact factor: 2.652

10.  Can an ethics officer role reduce delays in research ethics approval? A mixed-method evaluation of an improvement project.

Authors:  Mary Dixon-Woods; Chris Foy; Charlotte Hayden; Rustam Al-Shahi Salman; Stephen Tebbutt; Sara Schroter
Journal:  BMJ Open       Date:  2016-08-31       Impact factor: 2.692

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.