Suppr超能文献

决策与机构动物护理和使用委员会:第1部分——全委会审查中讨论的方案信息

Decision Making and the IACUC: Part 1- Protocol Information Discussed at Full-Committee Reviews.

作者信息

Silverman Jerald, Lidz Charles W, Clayfield Jonathan C, Murray Alexandra, Simon Lorna J, Rondeau Richard G

机构信息

Department of Animal Medicine, University of Massachusetts Medical School, Worcester, Massachusetts, USA; Department of Pathology, University of Massachusetts Medical School, Worcester, Massachusetts, USA.

Department of Psychiatry, University of Massachusetts Medical School, Worcester, Massachusetts, USA.

出版信息

J Am Assoc Lab Anim Sci. 2015 Jul;54(4):389-98.

Abstract

IACUC protocols can be reviewed by either the full committee or designated members. Both review methods use the principles of the 3 Rs (reduce, refine, replace) as the overarching paradigm, with federal regulations and policies providing more detailed guidance. The primary goal of this study was to determine the frequency of topics discussed by IACUC during full-committee reviews and whether the topics included those required for consideration by IACUC (for example, pain and distress, number of animals used, availability of alternatives, skill and experience of researchers). We recorded and transcribed 87 protocol discussions undergoing full-committee review at 10 academic institutions. Each transcript was coded to capture the key concepts of the discussion and analyzed for the frequency of the codes mentioned. Pain and distress was the code mentioned most often, followed by the specific procedures performed, the study design, and the completeness of the protocol form. Infrequently mentioned topics were alternatives to animal use or painful or distressful procedures, the importance of the research, and preliminary data. Not all of the topics required to be considered by the IACUC were openly discussed for all protocols, and many of the discussions were limited in their depth.

摘要

机构动物护理与使用委员会(IACUC)的方案可由整个委员会或指定成员进行审查。两种审查方法均采用3R原则(减少、优化、替代)作为总体范式,联邦法规和政策提供了更详细的指导。本研究的主要目的是确定IACUC在全委会审查期间讨论的主题频率,以及这些主题是否包括IACUC需要考虑的主题(例如,疼痛和痛苦、所用动物数量、替代方法的可用性、研究人员的技能和经验)。我们记录并转录了10所学术机构正在进行全委会审查的87个方案讨论。对每份转录本进行编码以捕捉讨论的关键概念,并分析所提及编码的频率。疼痛和痛苦是提及最频繁的编码,其次是所执行的具体程序、研究设计和方案表格的完整性。很少提及的主题是动物使用的替代方法或痛苦的程序、研究的重要性和初步数据。并非所有IACUC需要考虑的主题都在所有方案中进行了公开讨论,而且许多讨论的深度有限。

相似文献

2
Factors Influencing IACUC Decision Making: Who Leads the Discussions?
J Empir Res Hum Res Ethics. 2017 Oct;12(4):209-216. doi: 10.1177/1556264617717827. Epub 2017 Jun 29.
5
Everything You Need to Know About Satisfying IACUC Protocol Requirements.
ILAR J. 2019 Dec 31;60(1):50-57. doi: 10.1093/ilar/ilz010.
6
Protocol audits for post-approval monitoring of animal use protocols.
Lab Anim (NY). 2005 Nov;34(10):23-7. doi: 10.1038/laban1105-23.
7
Lapse in Institutional Animal Care and Use Committee Continuing Reviews.
PLoS One. 2016 Sep 8;11(9):e0162141. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0162141. eCollection 2016.
8
A sample postapproval monitoring program in academia.
ILAR J. 2008;49(4):402-18. doi: 10.1093/ilar.49.4.402.
9
Response to refusal to renew an expiring protocol: IACUC acted appropriately, but..
Lab Anim (NY). 2010 Nov;39(11):336-7. doi: 10.1038/laban1110-336b.

引用本文的文献

1
Institutional animal care and use committees and the challenges of evaluating animal research proposals.
Res Integr Peer Rev. 2025 Jul 4;10(1):11. doi: 10.1186/s41073-025-00169-9.
2
How animal ethics committees make decisions - a scoping review of empirical studies.
PLoS One. 2025 Mar 17;20(3):e0318570. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0318570. eCollection 2025.
4
Evaluating IACUCs: Previous Research and Future Directions.
J Am Assoc Lab Anim Sci. 2020 Nov 1;59(6):656-664. doi: 10.30802/AALAS-JAALAS-20-000077. Epub 2020 Sep 14.
6
Factors Influencing IACUC Decision Making: Who Leads the Discussions?
J Empir Res Hum Res Ethics. 2017 Oct;12(4):209-216. doi: 10.1177/1556264617717827. Epub 2017 Jun 29.
7
Tough decisions about protocol review.
Lab Anim (NY). 2017 Jun 23;46(7):290-294. doi: 10.1038/laban.1300.

本文引用的文献

1
Analysis of Animal Research Ethics Committee Membership at American Institutions.
Animals (Basel). 2012 Feb 22;2(1):68-75. doi: 10.3390/ani2010068.
2
Evaluating the ethical acceptability of animal research.
Lab Anim (NY). 2014 Nov;43(11):411-4. doi: 10.1038/laban.572.
5
Institution animal care and use committees need greater ethical diversity.
J Med Ethics. 2013 Mar;39(3):188-90. doi: 10.1136/medethics-2012-100982. Epub 2012 Nov 6.
6
Learning and retaining simulated arthroscopic meniscal repair skills.
J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2012 Sep 5;94(17):e132. doi: 10.2106/JBJS.K.01438.
9
How closely do institutional review boards follow the common rule?
Acad Med. 2012 Jul;87(7):969-74. doi: 10.1097/ACM.0b013e3182575e2e.
10
The participation of community members on medical institutional review boards.
J Empir Res Hum Res Ethics. 2012 Feb;7(1):1-6. doi: 10.1525/jer.2012.7.1.1.

文献AI研究员

20分钟写一篇综述,助力文献阅读效率提升50倍。

立即体验

用中文搜PubMed

大模型驱动的PubMed中文搜索引擎

马上搜索

文档翻译

学术文献翻译模型,支持多种主流文档格式。

立即体验