Ethics review roulette: what can we learn?
作者信息
Glasziou Paul, Chalmers Iain
出版信息
BMJ. 2004 Jan 17;328(7432):121-2. doi: 10.1136/bmj.328.7432.121.
Abstract
摘要
相似文献
1
Ethics review roulette: what can we learn?伦理审查轮盘赌：我们能学到什么？
BMJ. 2004 Jan 17;328(7432):121-2. doi: 10.1136/bmj.328.7432.121.
2
Ethical ethics committees?: a response.伦理道德委员会？：一则回应。
J Med Ethics. 2000 Aug;26(4):289-90. doi: 10.1136/jme.26.4.289-a.
3
Research ethical committees.
Lancet. 1983 Jul 30;2(8344):288. doi: 10.1016/s0140-6736(83)90273-8.
4
Research ethics committees.研究伦理委员会。
BMJ. 1990 Mar 3;300(6724):607-8.
5
Is it time to abandon institutional research ethics committees?是时候摒弃机构研究伦理委员会了吗？
Monash Bioeth Rev. 2002 Jul;21(3):S74-7. doi: 10.1007/BF03351281.
6
Ethics committees: impediments to research or guardians of ethical standards?伦理委员会：研究的阻碍还是道德标准的守护者？
BMJ. 1995 Sep 9;311(7006):661. doi: 10.1136/bmj.311.7006.661.
7
Ethics committees: local and national.伦理委员会：地方和国家层面的
BMJ. 1989 Mar 18;298(6675):747-8. doi: 10.1136/bmj.298.6675.747-e.
8
Research ethics committees.研究伦理委员会。
BMJ. 1990 Apr 7;300(6729):943.
9
Ethics review in research: ethics committees are risk averse.研究中的伦理审查：伦理委员会规避风险。
BMJ. 2004 Mar 20;328(7441):710-1. doi: 10.1136/bmj.328.7441.710-c.
10
Ethics committees.
Lancet. 1995 Apr 22;345(8956):1051.
引用本文的文献
1
Improving research ethics review and governance can improve human health.改善研究伦理审查与管理可促进人类健康。
J R Soc Med. 2021 Dec;114(12):556-562. doi: 10.1177/01410768211051711. Epub 2021 Nov 11.
2
Protecting the public from the adverse effects of confused research ethics.保护公众免受混乱的研究伦理的不利影响。
J R Soc Med. 2021 Nov;114(11):507-512. doi: 10.1177/01410768211051720. Epub 2021 Oct 26.
3
Reporting ethical approval in health and social science articles: an audit of adherence to GDPR and national legislation.报告健康和社会科学文章中的伦理批准：对 GDPR 和国家立法遵守情况的审核。
BMC Med Ethics. 2021 Jul 15;22(1):92. doi: 10.1186/s12910-021-00664-w.
4
Exempting low-risk health and medical research from ethics reviews: comparing Australia, the United Kingdom, the United States and the Netherlands.免除低风险健康和医学研究的伦理审查：比较澳大利亚、英国、美国和荷兰。
Health Res Policy Syst. 2020 Jan 28;18(1):11. doi: 10.1186/s12961-019-0520-4.
5
The high costs of getting ethical and site-specific approvals for multi-centre research.为多中心研究获取伦理和特定地点批准的高昂成本。
Res Integr Peer Rev. 2016 Dec 7;1:16. doi: 10.1186/s41073-016-0023-6. eCollection 2016.
6
Research ethics committees in the regulation of clinical research: comparison of Finland to England, Canada, and the United States.临床研究监管中的研究伦理委员会：芬兰与英国、加拿大和美国的比较。
Health Res Policy Syst. 2016 Jan 19;14:5. doi: 10.1186/s12961-016-0078-3.
7
Sense and readability: participant information sheets for research studies.意义与可读性：研究项目的参与者信息表
Br J Psychiatry. 2016 Feb;208(2):189-94. doi: 10.1192/bjp.bp.114.156687. Epub 2015 Sep 17.
8
Tackling treatment uncertainties together: the evolution of the James Lind Initiative, 2003-2013.共同应对治疗不确定性：詹姆斯·林德倡议的发展历程，2003 - 2013年
J R Soc Med. 2013 Dec;106(12):482-91. doi: 10.1177/0141076813493063. Epub 2013 Jul 3.
9
Ethical issues in human genomics research in developing countries.发展中国家人类基因组学研究中的伦理问题。
BMC Med Ethics. 2011 Mar 18;12:5. doi: 10.1186/1472-6939-12-5.
10
Clinical governance and research ethics as barriers to UK low-risk population-based health research?临床治理与研究伦理会成为英国基于低风险人群的健康研究的障碍吗？
BMC Public Health. 2008 Nov 28;8:396. doi: 10.1186/1471-2458-8-396.
本文引用的文献
1
Recruitment failure in early neonatal research.早期新生儿研究中的招募失败。
Arch Dis Child Fetal Neonatal Ed. 2004 May;89(3):F281. doi: 10.1136/adc.2003.043711.
2
Comparison of requirements of research ethics committees in 11 European countries for a non-invasive interventional study.11个欧洲国家研究伦理委员会对一项非侵入性介入性研究的要求比较。
BMJ. 2004 Jan 17;328(7432):140-1. doi: 10.1136/bmj.328.7432.140.
3
Variations in experience in obtaining local ethical approval for participation in a multi-centre study.在获得参与多中心研究的当地伦理批准方面的经验差异。
QJM. 2003 Apr;96(4):305-7. doi: 10.1093/qjmed/hcg042.
4
What are the effects of the fifth revision of the Declaration of Helsinki?《赫尔辛基宣言》第五版修订案有哪些影响？
BMJ. 2001 Dec 15;323(7326):1417-23. doi: 10.1136/bmj.323.7326.1417.
5
Ethical approval for research involving geographically dispersed subjects: unsuitability of the UK MREC/LREC system and relevance to uncommon genetic disorders.涉及地域分散受试者的研究的伦理批准：英国医学研究伦理委员会/地方研究伦理委员会系统的不适用性及与罕见遗传病的相关性
J Med Ethics. 2001 Oct;27(5):347-51. doi: 10.1136/jme.27.5.347.
6
Investigating allegations of research misconduct: the vital need for due process.调查科研不端行为指控：正当程序的迫切需求
BMJ. 2000 Sep 23;321(7263):752-5. doi: 10.1136/bmj.321.7263.752.
7
The new system of review by multicentre research ethics committees: prospective study.多中心研究伦理委员会的新审查系统：前瞻性研究。
BMJ. 2000 Apr 29;320(7243):1179-82. doi: 10.1136/bmj.320.7243.1179.
8
Ethical review of a multicentre study in Scotland: a weighty problem.苏格兰一项多中心研究的伦理审查：一个棘手的问题。
J R Coll Physicians Lond. 1999 Nov-Dec;33(6):549-52.
9
Local research ethics committees. BMA's advice about approval of clinical audit studies is confusing.当地研究伦理委员会。英国医学协会关于临床审计研究批准的建议令人困惑。
BMJ. 1997 Jul 5;315(7099):60. doi: 10.1136/bmj.315.7099.60b.
10
Ethics of n-of-1 trials.单病例试验的伦理学
Lancet. 1995 Feb 25;345(8948):469. doi: 10.1016/s0140-6736(95)90578-2.
Zotero 插件