Literature DB >> 26224439

Decision Making and the IACUC: Part 1- Protocol Information Discussed at Full-Committee Reviews.

Jerald Silverman1, Charles W Lidz2, Jonathan C Clayfield2, Alexandra Murray2, Lorna J Simon2, Richard G Rondeau2.   

Abstract

IACUC protocols can be reviewed by either the full committee or designated members. Both review methods use the principles of the 3 Rs (reduce, refine, replace) as the overarching paradigm, with federal regulations and policies providing more detailed guidance. The primary goal of this study was to determine the frequency of topics discussed by IACUC during full-committee reviews and whether the topics included those required for consideration by IACUC (for example, pain and distress, number of animals used, availability of alternatives, skill and experience of researchers). We recorded and transcribed 87 protocol discussions undergoing full-committee review at 10 academic institutions. Each transcript was coded to capture the key concepts of the discussion and analyzed for the frequency of the codes mentioned. Pain and distress was the code mentioned most often, followed by the specific procedures performed, the study design, and the completeness of the protocol form. Infrequently mentioned topics were alternatives to animal use or painful or distressful procedures, the importance of the research, and preliminary data. Not all of the topics required to be considered by the IACUC were openly discussed for all protocols, and many of the discussions were limited in their depth.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2015        PMID: 26224439      PMCID: PMC4521573     

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Am Assoc Lab Anim Sci        ISSN: 1559-6109            Impact factor:   1.232


  30 in total

1.  Should the decisions of ethics committees be based on community values?

Authors:  H Häyry
Journal:  Med Health Care Philos       Date:  1998

2.  A case for integrity: gains from including more than animal welfare in animal ethics committee deliberations.

Authors:  H Röcklinsberg; C Gamborg; M Gjerris
Journal:  Lab Anim       Date:  2014-01       Impact factor: 2.471

3.  Evaluating the ethical acceptability of animal research.

Authors:  Henriëtte J Bout; J Martje Fentener van Vlissingen; Edgar D Karssing
Journal:  Lab Anim (NY)       Date:  2014-11       Impact factor: 12.625

4.  Trust and regulatory organisations: the role of local knowledge and facework in research ethics review.

Authors:  Adam M Hedgecoe
Journal:  Soc Stud Sci       Date:  2012-10       Impact factor: 3.885

5.  The participation of community members on medical institutional review boards.

Authors:  Charles W Lidz; Lorna J Simon; Antonia V Seligowski; Suzanne Myers; William Gardner; Philip J Candilis; Robert Arnold; Paul S Appelbaum
Journal:  J Empir Res Hum Res Ethics       Date:  2012-02       Impact factor: 1.742

6.  How closely do institutional review boards follow the common rule?

Authors:  Charles W Lidz; Paul S Appelbaum; Robert Arnold; Philip Candilis; William Gardner; Suzanne Myers; Lorna Simon
Journal:  Acad Med       Date:  2012-07       Impact factor: 6.893

7.  Developing standards in animal research review.

Authors:  R Dresser
Journal:  J Am Vet Med Assoc       Date:  1989-05-01       Impact factor: 1.936

8.  Association of hospital and surgeon volume of total hip replacement with functional status and satisfaction three years following surgery.

Authors:  Jeffrey N Katz; Charlotte B Phillips; John A Baron; Anne H Fossel; Nizar N Mahomed; Jane Barrett; Elizabeth A Lingard; William H Harris; Robert Poss; Robert A Lew; Edward Guadagnoli; Elizabeth A Wright; Elena Losina
Journal:  Arthritis Rheum       Date:  2003-02

9.  Survey of Canadian animal-based researchers' views on the Three Rs: replacement, reduction and refinement.

Authors:  Nicole Fenwick; Peter Danielson; Gilly Griffin
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2011-08-17       Impact factor: 3.240

10.  Institution animal care and use committees need greater ethical diversity.

Authors:  Lawrence Arthur Hansen
Journal:  J Med Ethics       Date:  2012-11-06       Impact factor: 2.903

View more
  4 in total

1.  Tough decisions about protocol review.

Authors:  Patricia A Preisig; Jerald Silverman; Patricia Brown; Nicolette Petervary
Journal:  Lab Anim (NY)       Date:  2017-06-23       Impact factor: 12.625

2.  Factors Influencing IACUC Decision Making: Who Leads the Discussions?

Authors:  Jerald Silverman; Charles W Lidz; Jonathan Clayfield; Alexandra Murray; Lorna J Simon; Louise Maranda
Journal:  J Empir Res Hum Res Ethics       Date:  2017-06-29       Impact factor: 1.742

3.  Evaluating IACUCs: Previous Research and Future Directions.

Authors:  Madeline L Budda; Stacy L Pritt
Journal:  J Am Assoc Lab Anim Sci       Date:  2020-09-14       Impact factor: 1.232

4.  Influence of animal pain and distress on judgments of animal research justifiability among university undergraduate students and faculty.

Authors:  Eric P Sandgren; Robert Streiffer; Jennifer Dykema; Nadia Assad; Jackson Moberg
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2022-08-08       Impact factor: 3.752

  4 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.