审视评审者：研究伦理委员会模糊的问责制
Reviewing the reviewers: the vague accountability of research ethics committees.
作者信息
Shaul Randi
机构信息
Bioethicist, Department of Bioethics, The Hospital for Sick Children, University of Toronto, Toronto, Ontario, Canada.
出版信息
Crit Care. 2002 Apr;6(2):121-2. doi: 10.1186/cc1469. Epub 2002 Mar 11.
Abstract
The role of research ethics committees (RECs) is currently strained by increases in the number of protocols that are in need of review, the scientific and funding complexities of the protocols, and a lack of clear standards for ethics assessment. This commentary describes the significance of these strains and calls for clarification of reviewer accountability. To maintain or, in many cases, to restore public and professional trust in the ethics of human research and in REC review of protocols, it is imperative that steps be taken to clarify the accountability of RECs and their individual members.
摘要
研究伦理委员会（RECs）的作用目前因需要审查的方案数量增加、方案的科学和资金复杂性以及缺乏明确的伦理评估标准而受到限制。本评论描述了这些限制的重要性，并呼吁明确审查者的问责制。为了维持或在许多情况下恢复公众和专业人士对人类研究伦理以及RECs对方案审查的信任，必须采取措施明确RECs及其个别成员的问责制。
相似文献
1
Reviewing the reviewers: the vague accountability of research ethics committees.审视评审者：研究伦理委员会模糊的问责制
Crit Care. 2002 Apr;6(2):121-2. doi: 10.1186/cc1469. Epub 2002 Mar 11.
2
Doing accountability: a discourse analysis of research ethics committee letters.履行问责制：对研究伦理委员会信件的话语分析
Sociol Health Illn. 2009 Mar;31(2):246-61. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-9566.2008.01132.x. Epub 2008 Oct 2.
3
A Call for Better, Not Faster, Research Ethics Committee Reviews in the Covid-19 Era.呼吁在新冠疫情时代加强而不是加速研究伦理委员会审查。
Ethics Hum Res. 2021 Sep;43(5):42-44. doi: 10.1002/eahr.500104.
4
Lay REC members: patient or public?非专业的研究伦理委员会成员：患者还是公众？
J Med Ethics. 2013 Dec;39(12):780-2. doi: 10.1136/medethics-2012-100642. Epub 2013 Mar 27.
5
The readiness of the Asian research ethics committees in responding to the COVID-19 pandemic: A multi-country survey.亚洲研究伦理委员会应对 COVID-19 大流行的准备情况：一项多国家调查。
F1000Res. 2024 Jan 8;13:19. doi: 10.12688/f1000research.143138.1. eCollection 2024.
6
Clinical research ethics review process in Lebanon: efficiency and functions of research ethics committees - results from a descriptive questionnaire-based study.黎巴嫩的临床研究伦理审查过程：研究伦理委员会的效率与职能——基于描述性问卷调查研究的结果
Trials. 2018 Jan 11;19(1):27. doi: 10.1186/s13063-017-2397-2.
7
Identifying structures, processes, resources and needs of research ethics committees in Egypt.识别埃及研究伦理委员会的结构、流程、资源和需求。
BMC Med Ethics. 2010 Jun 28;11:12. doi: 10.1186/1472-6939-11-12.
8
Standards for research ethics committees: purpose, problems and the possibilities of other approaches.研究伦理委员会标准：目的、问题及其他方法的可能性
J Med Ethics. 2009 Jun;35(6):382-3. doi: 10.1136/jme.2008.027722.
9
Training needs assessment in research ethics evaluation among research ethics committee members in three African countries: Cameroon, Mali and Tanzania.在三个非洲国家（喀麦隆、马里和坦桑尼亚）的研究伦理委员会成员中进行研究伦理评估的培训需求评估。
Dev World Bioeth. 2010 Aug;10(2):88-98. doi: 10.1111/j.1471-8847.2009.00266.x. Epub 2009 Nov 12.
10
Should research ethics committees meet in public?研究伦理委员会应该公开召开会议吗？
J Med Ethics. 2008 Aug;34(8):631-5. doi: 10.1136/jme.2007.022574.
引用本文的文献
1
Research Ethics Committees in Laboratory Medicine.检验医学中的研究伦理委员会。
EJIFCC. 2020 Nov 20;31(4):282-291. eCollection 2020 Nov.
2
Reflections on running training workshops for research ethics committee members in Spain between 2001 and 2008.对2001年至2008年期间在西班牙为研究伦理委员会成员举办培训工作坊的思考。
Croat Med J. 2010 Dec;51(6):552-9. doi: 10.3325/cmj.2010.51.552.
3
Understanding bureaucracy in health science ethics: toward a better institutional review board.理解健康科学伦理中的官僚作风：迈向更好的机构审查委员会。
Am J Public Health. 2009 Sep;99(9):1549-56. doi: 10.2105/AJPH.2008.152389. Epub 2009 Jul 16.
本文引用的文献
1
The Belmont Report. Ethical principles and guidelines for the protection of human subjects of research.《贝尔蒙报告》。保护人类研究受试者的伦理原则与准则。
J Am Coll Dent. 2014 Summer;81(3):4-13.
2
The legal status of clinical and ethics policies, codes, and guidelines in medical practice and research.临床及伦理政策、规范和指南在医学实践与研究中的法律地位。
McGill Law J. 2001 Feb;46(2):473-89.
3
Protecting human subjects in research--occasional views along a road less traveled.
Bioethics Forum. 2000 Winter;16(4):37-42.
4
5
Tort liability of institutional review boards.
West VA Law Rev. 1984 Fall;87(1):137-64.
6
Goodbye to all that. The end of moderate protectionism in human subjects research.告别这一切。人类受试者研究中适度保护主义的终结。
Hastings Cent Rep. 2001 May-Jun;31(3):9-17.
7
Dealing with conflicts of interest in biomedical research: IRB oversight as the next best solution to the abolitionist approach.
J Law Med Ethics. 2000 Winter;28(4):379-404.
8
Ethics review for sale? Conflict of interest and commercial research review boards.伦理审查可以买卖吗？利益冲突与商业研究审查委员会
Milbank Q. 2000;78(4):547-84, iii-iv. doi: 10.1111/1468-0009.00185.
9
Ethical review of multi-centre research: a survey of multi-centre researchers in the South Thames region.多中心研究的伦理审查：对南泰晤士地区多中心研究人员的一项调查
J R Coll Physicians Lond. 1998 May-Jun;32(3):242-5.
10
Conflicts of interest in Canadian health care law.
Am J Law Med. 1995;21(2-3):259-80.
Zotero 插件