Literature DB >> 8956711

Are research ethics committees behaving unethically? Some suggestions for improving performance and accountability.

J Savulescu1, I Chalmers, J Blunt.   

Abstract

The results of recent empirical investigations in research synthesis imply that research ethics committees are behaving unethically by endorsing new research which is unnecessary and by acquiescing in biased under-reporting of research which they have approved. The performance and accountability of research ethics committees would be improved if they required those proposing research to present systematic reviews of relevant previous research in support of their applications; to summarise the results of these reviews in the information prepared for potential participants; to register new controlled trials at inception; and to ensure that the results of these trials are made publicly available within a reasonable period of time after completion of data collection.

Entities:  

Keywords:  Biomedical and Behavioral Research

Mesh:

Year:  1996        PMID: 8956711      PMCID: PMC2352884          DOI: 10.1136/bmj.313.7069.1390

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  BMJ        ISSN: 0959-8138


  46 in total

1.  Local research ethics committees.

Authors:  K G Alberti
Journal:  BMJ       Date:  1995-09-09

2.  Cross district comparison of applications to research ethics committees.

Authors:  P Garfield
Journal:  BMJ       Date:  1995-09-09

3.  Ethics approval for a national postal survey: recent experience.

Authors:  C Middle; A Johnson; T Petty; L Sims; A Macfarlane
Journal:  BMJ       Date:  1995-09-09

4.  Ethics committees: impediments to research or guardians of ethical standards?

Authors:  A E While
Journal:  BMJ       Date:  1995-09-09

5.  Whose data are they anyway?

Authors:  T Delamothe
Journal:  BMJ       Date:  1996-05-18

6.  Handling scientific fraud. Prospective registration of health care research would help.

Authors:  I Chalmers; M Gray; T Sheldon
Journal:  BMJ       Date:  1995-07-22

7.  [The Cochrane Collaboration and evidence-based medicine].

Authors:  J P Vandenbroucke
Journal:  Ned Tijdschr Geneeskd       Date:  1995-07-22

8.  The relationship between methodological quality and conclusions in reviews of spinal manipulation.

Authors:  W J Assendelft; B W Koes; P G Knipschild; L M Bouter
Journal:  JAMA       Date:  1995-12-27       Impact factor: 56.272

9.  How to get patients' consent to enter clinical trials. Reports of trials should state proportion of people who refuse to participate.

Authors:  F Riordan; A P Thomson
Journal:  BMJ       Date:  1996-01-20
View more
  28 in total

1.  Registering clinical trials.

Authors:  A Tonks
Journal:  BMJ       Date:  1999-12-11

2.  Evidence-based medicine: worship of form and treatment of high blood pressure.

Authors:  B M Psaty; C Rhoads; C D Furberg
Journal:  J Gen Intern Med       Date:  2000-10       Impact factor: 5.128

3.  Ethics behind closed doors: do research ethics committees need secrecy?

Authors:  R Ashcroft; N Pfeffer
Journal:  BMJ       Date:  2001-05-26

Review 4.  New governance arrangements for research ethics committees: is facilitating research achieved at the cost of participants' interest.

Authors:  E Cave; S Holm
Journal:  J Med Ethics       Date:  2002-10       Impact factor: 2.903

5.  Conflict of interest and medical publication.

Authors:  Marcus M Reidenberg
Journal:  Sci Eng Ethics       Date:  2002-07       Impact factor: 3.525

Review 6.  [Magnetic resonance imaging. Density equalizing mapping analysis of global research architecture].

Authors:  D Ohlendorf; B Schwarze; D A Groneberg; M Schwarzer
Journal:  Radiologe       Date:  2015-09       Impact factor: 0.635

7.  CONSORT 2010 explanation and elaboration: updated guidelines for reporting parallel group randomised trials.

Authors:  David Moher; Sally Hopewell; Kenneth F Schulz; Victor Montori; Peter C Gøtzsche; P J Devereaux; Diana Elbourne; Matthias Egger; Douglas G Altman
Journal:  BMJ       Date:  2010-03-23

Review 8.  Research protocols: waiving confidentiality for the greater good.

Authors:  An-Wen Chan; Ross Upshur; Jerome A Singh; Davina Ghersi; François Chapuis; Douglas G Altman
Journal:  BMJ       Date:  2006-05-06

9.  Using health technology assessment to identify research gaps: an unexploited resource for increasing the value of clinical research.

Authors:  N Ann Scott; Carmen Moga; Christa Harstall; Jacques Magnan
Journal:  Healthc Policy       Date:  2008-02

Review 10.  When placebo controlled trials are essential and equivalence trials are inadequate.

Authors:  M R Tramèr; D J Reynolds; R A Moore; H J McQuay
Journal:  BMJ       Date:  1998-09-26
View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.