Literature DB >> 9670152

Ethical review of multi-centre research: a survey of multi-centre researchers in the South Thames region.

C Foster1, S Holley.   

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: To generate baseline data about the experiences of researchers applying to five or more local research ethics committees (LRECs) for ethical review. The new multi-centre review system will be compared with these data.
DESIGN: Ninety-seven researchers, whose status as multicentre researchers was unclear, were identified from various sources in the South Thames Region. They were each sent a questionnaire asking for their views on the substance of ethical review and their experiences of the process of ethical review.
RESULTS: Of the completed questionnaires, 24 fitted the multicentre criteria of applying to five or more LRECs. Responses showed dissatisfaction with LRECs' treatment of the scientific aspects of research, but satisfaction with aspects relating to consent and protection of patients' welfare. Respondents experienced great difficulty in the administration of the process of ethical review.
CONCLUSIONS: The need for a new system of ethical review for multi-centre research is beyond doubt. It remains to be seen whether it will be an improvement.

Entities:  

Keywords:  Biomedical and Behavioral Research; Empirical Approach

Mesh:

Year:  1998        PMID: 9670152

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J R Coll Physicians Lond        ISSN: 0035-8819


  4 in total

1.  Multicentre research ethics committees: has the cure been worse than the disease? No, but idiosyncracies and obstructions to good research must be removed.

Authors:  K G Alberti
Journal:  BMJ       Date:  2000-04-29

2.  The new system of review by multicentre research ethics committees: prospective study.

Authors:  J Tully; N Ninis; R Booy; R Viner
Journal:  BMJ       Date:  2000-04-29

Review 3.  Research ethics committees in the UK--the pressure is now on research and development departments.

Authors:  Rustam Al-Shahi
Journal:  J R Soc Med       Date:  2005-10       Impact factor: 18.000

Review 4.  Reviewing the reviewers: the vague accountability of research ethics committees.

Authors:  Randi Shaul
Journal:  Crit Care       Date:  2002-03-11       Impact factor: 9.097

  4 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.