• 文献检索
  • 文档翻译
  • 深度研究
  • 学术资讯
  • Suppr Zotero 插件Zotero 插件
  • 邀请有礼
  • 套餐&价格
  • 历史记录
应用&插件
Suppr Zotero 插件Zotero 插件浏览器插件Mac 客户端Windows 客户端微信小程序
定价
高级版会员购买积分包购买API积分包
服务
文献检索文档翻译深度研究API 文档MCP 服务
关于我们
关于 Suppr公司介绍联系我们用户协议隐私条款
关注我们

Suppr 超能文献

核心技术专利:CN118964589B侵权必究
粤ICP备2023148730 号-1Suppr @ 2026

文献检索

告别复杂PubMed语法,用中文像聊天一样搜索,搜遍4000万医学文献。AI智能推荐,让科研检索更轻松。

立即免费搜索

文件翻译

保留排版,准确专业,支持PDF/Word/PPT等文件格式,支持 12+语言互译。

免费翻译文档

深度研究

AI帮你快速写综述,25分钟生成高质量综述,智能提取关键信息,辅助科研写作。

立即免费体验

检验医学中的研究伦理委员会。

Research Ethics Committees in Laboratory Medicine.

作者信息

Beshir Lamis

机构信息

Department of Clinical Immunology, Sudan Medical Specialization Board, Khartoum, Sudan.

On behalf of the IFCC Task Force on Ethics (TF-E).

出版信息

EJIFCC. 2020 Nov 20;31(4):282-291. eCollection 2020 Nov.

PMID:33376468
原文链接:https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC7745300/
Abstract

Biomedical research that involves human subjects requires compliance with ethical principles and guidelines. The ethical and scientific standards of research have been thoroughly discussed by international ethical guidelines and declarations. Compliance with these ensures the autonomy, dignity and well-being of research subjects; as well as the integrity and credibility of research results. Research ethics committees (RECs) are mandated to ensure that research proposals are scientifically sound and ethical. In this review, we define RECs in laboratory medicine and describe their role based on the examination of the requirements of ethical research; discuss particular ethical issues that arise in laboratory medicine research using biological samples, what challenges they face and how they can ensure the quality of their review. RECs need to be put into a broader framework that ensures institutional governance with continuous evaluation and auditing that ensure the quality of ethical review.

摘要

涉及人类受试者的生物医学研究需要遵循伦理原则和准则。国际伦理准则和宣言已对研究的伦理和科学标准进行了全面讨论。遵守这些准则可确保研究受试者的自主性、尊严和福祉,以及研究结果的完整性和可信度。研究伦理委员会(RECs)的职责是确保研究提案在科学上合理且符合伦理。在本综述中,我们界定了检验医学中的研究伦理委员会,并根据对伦理研究要求的审视描述了它们的作用;讨论了使用生物样本的检验医学研究中出现的特定伦理问题、它们面临的挑战以及如何确保其审查质量。研究伦理委员会需要置于一个更广泛的框架中,该框架确保通过持续评估和审计进行机构治理,以确保伦理审查的质量。

https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/25e7/7745300/fa0a2e152bd6/ejifcc-31-282-g001.jpg
https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/25e7/7745300/fa0a2e152bd6/ejifcc-31-282-g001.jpg
https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/25e7/7745300/fa0a2e152bd6/ejifcc-31-282-g001.jpg

相似文献

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
Challenges in the Ethical Review of Peer Support Interventions.同伴支持干预的伦理审查中的挑战。
Ann Fam Med. 2015 Aug;13 Suppl 1(Suppl 1):S79-86. doi: 10.1370/afm.1803.
3
Ethical considerations in malaria research proposal review: empirical evidence from 114 proposals submitted to an Ethics Committee in Thailand.疟疾研究提案审查中的伦理考量:来自提交给泰国一个伦理委员会的114份提案的实证证据。
Malar J. 2015 Sep 14;14:342. doi: 10.1186/s12936-015-0854-5.
4
Human Participants in Engineering Research: Notes from a Fledgling Ethics Committee.工程研究中的人类受试者:一个初创伦理委员会的笔记
Sci Eng Ethics. 2015 Aug;21(4):1033-48. doi: 10.1007/s11948-014-9568-2. Epub 2014 Jun 18.
5
Culture of Care: Organizational Responsibilities关怀文化:组织职责
6
Research Ethics Committees' Oversight of Biomedical Research in South Africa: A Thematic Analysis of Ethical Issues Raised During Ethics Review of Non-Expedited Protocols.南非研究伦理委员会对生物医学研究的监督:对非快速审查方案伦理审查期间提出的伦理问题的主题分析。
J Empir Res Hum Res Ethics. 2019 Apr;14(2):107-116. doi: 10.1177/1556264618824921. Epub 2019 Jan 24.
7
American Society of Clinical Oncology policy statement: oversight of clinical research.美国临床肿瘤学会政策声明:临床研究监督
J Clin Oncol. 2003 Jun 15;21(12):2377-86. doi: 10.1200/JCO.2003.04.026. Epub 2003 Apr 29.
8
Ethics for Laboratory Medicine.《实验室医学伦理学》
Clin Chem. 2019 Dec;65(12):1497-1507. doi: 10.1373/clinchem.2019.306670. Epub 2019 Aug 21.
9
Ethical regulation of biomedical research in Brazil: a quality improvement initiative.巴西生物医学研究的伦理监管:一项质量改进举措。
BMC Med Ethics. 2024 Jun 10;25(1):68. doi: 10.1186/s12910-024-01065-5.
10
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.

引用本文的文献

1
Evaluation of health laboratory ethical compliance among laboratory practitioners in Kinondoni District, Tanzania.坦桑尼亚基农多尼区实验室从业者健康实验室伦理合规情况评估。
BMC Health Serv Res. 2025 Apr 16;25(1):561. doi: 10.1186/s12913-025-12556-5.
2
Characterization of Factors Predicting a Favorable Opinion of Research Applications Submitted for an Ethical Review Process.预测提交伦理审查程序的研究申请获得正面评价的因素特征分析
Front Med (Lausanne). 2022 Jun 16;9:878786. doi: 10.3389/fmed.2022.878786. eCollection 2022.

本文引用的文献

1
Ethics for Laboratory Medicine.《实验室医学伦理学》
Clin Chem. 2019 Dec;65(12):1497-1507. doi: 10.1373/clinchem.2019.306670. Epub 2019 Aug 21.
2
Informed consent and ethics committee approval in laboratory medicine.在医学检验中知情同意和伦理委员会的批准。
Biochem Med (Zagreb). 2018 Oct 15;28(3):030201. doi: 10.11613/BM.2018.030201.
3
Opening options for material transfer.材料传输的开启选项。
Nat Biotechnol. 2018 Oct 11;36(10):923-927. doi: 10.1038/nbt.4263.
4
Institutional Review Boards: Purpose and Challenges.机构审查委员会:目的与挑战。
Chest. 2015 Nov;148(5):1148-1155. doi: 10.1378/chest.15-0706.
5
Use and misuse of material transfer agreements: lessons in proportionality from research, repositories, and litigation.材料转让协议的使用与滥用:来自研究、储存库及诉讼的相称性教训
PLoS Biol. 2015 Feb 3;13(2):e1002060. doi: 10.1371/journal.pbio.1002060. eCollection 2015 Feb.
6
Variability of ethics education in laboratory medicine training programs: results of an international survey.实验室医学培训项目中伦理教育的多样性:一项国际调查的结果。
Clin Chim Acta. 2015 Mar 10;442:115-8. doi: 10.1016/j.cca.2014.11.023. Epub 2014 Nov 29.
7
Institutional review boards: what's old? What's new? What needs to change?机构审查委员会:旧的是什么?新的是什么?需要改变的是什么?
Plast Reconstr Surg. 2014 Feb;133(2):439-445. doi: 10.1097/01.prs.0000436846.00247.73.
8
Ethical and legal considerations regarding the ownership and commercial use of human biological materials and their derivatives.关于人类生物材料及其衍生物的所有权和商业用途的伦理和法律考量。
J Blood Med. 2012;3:87-96. doi: 10.2147/JBM.S36134. Epub 2012 Aug 7.
9
Informed consent: its history, meaning, and present challenges.知情同意:其历史、意义及当前挑战。
Camb Q Healthc Ethics. 2011 Oct;20(4):515-23. doi: 10.1017/S0963180111000259.
10
A systematic review of the empirical literature evaluating IRBs: what we know and what we still need to learn.对评估机构审查委员会的实证文献进行的系统综述:我们已知的和仍需了解的内容。
J Empir Res Hum Res Ethics. 2011 Mar;6(1):3-19. doi: 10.1525/jer.2011.6.1.3.