Literature DB >> 33596904

A CTSA One Health Alliance guidance on institutional review of veterinary clinical studies.

A O'Kell1, H Borghese2, S A Moore3, R Garabed4, H O'Meara5, P Baneux6.   

Abstract

Harmonized institutional processes and reviewer training are vital to maintain integrity and ethical rigor of the veterinary clinical research pipeline and are a prerequisite to future work that might establish centralized or single-site ethical and regulatory review to ease initiation of multi-center studies. Funded by a CTSA One Health Alliance (COHA) pilot award, a diverse working group of veterinary clinicians and institutional representatives was convened in February 2020 to develop a guidance document detailing broadly agreed upon practices for ethical review and approval of veterinary clinical studies conducted in the United States.The working group defined key areas of need for consensus, developed a set of associated guidelines, and circulated these for review by COHA's fifteen member institutions. Six focus areas were identified by the working group and included vital items of protocol review, composition of the review committee, post-approval monitoring and adverse event reporting, consideration of special circumstances such as satellite sites and the use of healthy veterinary subjects in research, and the informed consent process.This document outlines a broadly agreed-upon framework through which to approach vital items associated with veterinary clinical study protocol review and approval. These approaches represent current best practice in the review and approval of veterinary clinical studies, and can serve as a guidance for veterinary clinician-scientists and regulatory experts, to ensure robust and ethically conducted studies that can contribute to the advancement of both animal and human health.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2021        PMID: 33596904      PMCID: PMC7890984          DOI: 10.1186/s12917-021-02790-4

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  BMC Vet Res        ISSN: 1746-6148            Impact factor:   2.741


  29 in total

Review 1.  Contesting the science/ethics distinction in the review of clinical research.

Authors:  Angus J Dawson; Steve M Yentis
Journal:  J Med Ethics       Date:  2007-03       Impact factor: 2.903

2.  A Framework for Assessing Scientific Merit in Ethical Review of Clinical Research.

Authors:  Ariella Binik; Spencer Phillips Hey
Journal:  Ethics Hum Res       Date:  2019-03

3.  Defining and Negotiating the Social Value of Research in Public Health Facilities: Perceptions of Stakeholders in a Research-Active Province of South Africa.

Authors:  Elizabeth Lutge; Catherine Slack; Douglas Wassenaar
Journal:  Bioethics       Date:  2017-02       Impact factor: 1.898

4.  Empirical assessment of whether moderate payments are undue or unjust inducements for participation in clinical trials.

Authors:  Scott D Halpern; Jason H T Karlawish; David Casarett; Jesse A Berlin; David A Asch
Journal:  Arch Intern Med       Date:  2004-04-12

5.  Do incentives exert undue influence on survey participation? Experimental evidence.

Authors:  Eleanor Singer; Mick P Couper
Journal:  J Empir Res Hum Res Ethics       Date:  2008-09       Impact factor: 1.742

Review 6.  Ethical issues in neonatal research involving human subjects.

Authors:  Alan R Fleischman
Journal:  Semin Perinatol       Date:  2016-01-21       Impact factor: 3.300

Review 7.  Companion animals: Translational scientist's new best friends.

Authors:  Amir Kol; Boaz Arzi; Kyriacos A Athanasiou; Diana L Farmer; Jan A Nolta; Robert B Rebhun; Xinbin Chen; Leigh G Griffiths; Frank J M Verstraete; Christopher J Murphy; Dori L Borjesson
Journal:  Sci Transl Med       Date:  2015-10-07       Impact factor: 17.956

8.  The social value of clinical research.

Authors:  Michelle G J L Habets; Johannes J M van Delden; Annelien L Bredenoord
Journal:  BMC Med Ethics       Date:  2014-09-05       Impact factor: 2.652

9.  The concept of 'vulnerability' in research ethics: an in-depth analysis of policies and guidelines.

Authors:  Dearbhail Bracken-Roche; Emily Bell; Mary Ellen Macdonald; Eric Racine
Journal:  Health Res Policy Syst       Date:  2017-02-07

Review 10.  Designing and using incentives to support recruitment and retention in clinical trials: a scoping review and a checklist for design.

Authors:  Beth Parkinson; Rachel Meacock; Matt Sutton; Eleonora Fichera; Nicola Mills; Gillian W Shorter; Shaun Treweek; Nicola L Harman; Rebecca C H Brown; Katie Gillies; Peter Bower
Journal:  Trials       Date:  2019-11-09       Impact factor: 2.279

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.