Research ethics committees in the UK--the pressure is now on research and development departments.
作者信息
Al-Shahi Rustam
机构信息
Division of Clinical Neurosciences, Centre for Clinical Brain Sciences, School of Molecular and Clinical Medicine, College of Medicine and Veterinary Medicine, University of Edinburgh, Western General Hospital, Edinburgh EH4 2XU, Scotland, UK.
出版信息
J R Soc Med. 2005 Oct;98(10):444-7. doi: 10.1177/014107680509801007.
Abstract
摘要
相似文献
1
Research ethics committees in the UK--the pressure is now on research and development departments.英国的研究伦理委员会——如今研发部门面临压力。
J R Soc Med. 2005 Oct;98(10):444-7. doi: 10.1177/014107680509801007.
2
A critical account of obtaining research governance approval.关于获得研究治理批准的批判性阐述。
Nurse Res. 2005;13(2):7-18. doi: 10.7748/nr.13.2.7.s3.
3
Ethics review of multi-centre clinical trials in Canada.
Health Law Rev. 2005;13(2-3):51-7.
4
5
The paradoxical problem with multiple-IRB review.多机构审查委员会审查中自相矛盾的问题。
N Engl J Med. 2010 Oct 21;363(17):1591-3. doi: 10.1056/NEJMp1005101. Epub 2010 Oct 13.
6
The ESRC research ethics framework and research ethics review at UK universities: rebuilding the Tower of Babel REC by REC.英国经济与社会研究委员会的研究伦理框架以及英国大学的研究伦理审查：逐个研究伦理委员会地重建巴别塔。
J Med Ethics. 2008 Nov;34(11):815-20. doi: 10.1136/jme.2008.024257.
7
Ethics and research governance in a multicentre study: add 150 days to your study protocol.多中心研究中的伦理与研究治理：在研究方案中增加150天。
BMJ. 2005 Apr 9;330(7495):847. doi: 10.1136/bmj.330.7495.847.
8
Ethical decision making in committee. A view from Germany.委员会中的伦理决策。来自德国的观点。
Not Polit. 2002;18(67):65-81.
9
Recommendations for promoting international multi-site clinical trials-from a viewpoint of ethics review.从伦理审查角度看促进国际多中心临床试验的建议
Dev World Bioeth. 2019 Dec;19(4):192-195. doi: 10.1111/dewb.12245. Epub 2019 Sep 12.
10
The trouble with ethics committees.伦理委员会的问题。
J R Coll Physicians Lond. 1994 Mar-Apr;28(2):102-4.
引用本文的文献
1
Lessons from studies of medication reduction in psychosis: giving participants accurate information about risk in psychiatric research trials.从精神病药物减少研究中吸取的教训：在精神科研究试验中向参与者提供有关风险的准确信息。
J Psychiatry Neurosci. 2024 Mar 1;49(2):E81-E86. doi: 10.1503/jpn.230137. Print 2024 Jan-Feb.
2
Fostering IRB collaboration for review of international research.促进机构审查委员会（IRB）合作以审查国际研究。
Am J Bioeth. 2014;14(5):3-8. doi: 10.1080/15265161.2014.892168.
3
Increasing value and reducing waste in biomedical research regulation and management.提高生物医学研究监管和管理的价值并减少浪费。
Lancet. 2014 Jan 11;383(9912):176-85. doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(13)62297-7. Epub 2014 Jan 8.
4
Undergraduate research involving human subjects should not be granted ethical approval unless it is likely to be of publishable quality.涉及人类受试者的本科研究，除非其可能具有可发表的质量，否则不应给予伦理批准。
HEC Forum. 2014 Jun;26(2):169-80. doi: 10.1007/s10730-013-9232-2.
5
Challenges in quantifying the patient-reported burden of herpes zoster and post-herpetic neuralgia in the UK: learnings from the Zoster Quality of Life (ZQOL) study.英国带状疱疹及带状疱疹后神经痛患者报告负担的量化挑战：来自带状疱疹生活质量（ZQOL）研究的经验教训
BMC Res Notes. 2013 Nov 25;6:486. doi: 10.1186/1756-0500-6-486.
6
7
Research governance delays for a multicentre non-interventional study.一项多中心非干预性研究的研究管理延迟
J R Soc Med. 2009 May;102(5):195-8. doi: 10.1258/jrsm.2009.080397.
8
Insights into how to conduct a clinical trial in the UK.关于如何在英国开展临床试验的见解。
J R Soc Med. 2007 Oct;100(10):469-72. doi: 10.1177/014107680710001016.
9
Research governance impediments to clinical trials: a retrospective survey.临床试验的研究治理障碍：一项回顾性调查。
J R Soc Med. 2007 Feb;100(2):101-4. doi: 10.1177/014107680710000227.
本文引用的文献
1
Institutional review boards and multisite studies in health services research: is there a better way?机构审查委员会与卫生服务研究中的多中心研究：是否存在更好的方法？
Health Serv Res. 2005 Feb;40(1):291-307. doi: 10.1111/j.1475-6773.2005.00354.x.
2
Variations among Institutional Review Board reviews in a multisite health services research study.一项多中心卫生服务研究中各机构审查委员会审查之间的差异。
Health Serv Res. 2005 Feb;40(1):279-90. doi: 10.1111/j.1475-6773.2005.00353.x.
3
Trust and confidence: towards mutual acceptance of ethics committee approval of multicentre studies.信任与信心：迈向对多中心研究伦理委员会批准的相互认可。
Intern Med J. 2004 Nov;34(11):598-603. doi: 10.1111/j.1445-5994.2004.00685.x.
4
Research ethics paperwork: what is the plot we seem to have lost?研究伦理文件：我们似乎遗漏了什么情节？
BMJ. 2004 Jul 31;329(7460):286-7. doi: 10.1136/bmj.329.7460.286.
5
Bureaucracy of ethics applications.伦理申请的官僚作风。
BMJ. 2004 Jul 31;329(7460):282-4. doi: 10.1136/bmj.329.7460.282.
6
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.
7
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.
8
The ethical bureaucracy.道德官僚机构
QJM. 2003 May;96(5):323-4. doi: 10.1093/qjmed/hcg060.
9
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.
10
Observational study of 353 applications to London multicentre research ethics committee 1997-2000.1997年至2000年对伦敦多中心研究伦理委员会353份申请的观察性研究。
BMJ. 2002 Nov 9;325(7372):1081. doi: 10.1136/bmj.325.7372.1081.
Zotero 插件