Switch to: Citations

References in:

Standards for research ethics committees: purpose, problems and the possibilities of other approaches

H. Davies, F. Wells & M. Czarkowski

Journal of Medical Ethics 35 (6):382-383 (2009)

Add references

You must login to add references.

Moving Beyond Compliance: Measuring Ethical Quality to Enhance the Oversight of Human Subjects Research.Holly Taylor - 2007 - IRB: Ethics & Human Research 29 (5).details A robust measure of whether local oversight of human subjects research is achieving the ethical goals of research oversight has never been developed. Assessing whether the local review process is achieving the ethical goals of research oversight will allow institutions to monitor their own human subjects protection programs and guide the investment of funds to improve performance. Without a measure of ethical quality, institutions, institutional review boards, regulators, and the public have no way of knowing if the intent of regulations (...) is being realized. (shrink) Download Export citation Bookmark 12 citations
Judging the Ethical Merit of Clinical Trials: What Criteria Do Research Ethics Board Members Use?Eric M. Meslin, James V. Lavery, Heather J. Sutherland & James E. Till - 1994 - IRB: Ethics & Human Research 16 (4):6.details Download Export citation Bookmark 3 citations
Consistency in decision making by research ethics committees: a controlled comparison.E. Angell, A. J. Sutton, K. Windridge & M. Dixon-Woods - 2006 - Journal of Medical Ethics 32 (11):662-664.details There has been longstanding interest in the consistency of decisions made by research ethics committees in the UK, but most of the evidence has come from single studies submitted to multiple committees. A systematic comparison was carried out of the decisions made on 18 purposively selected applications, each of which was reviewed independently by three different RECs in a single strategic health authority. Decisions on 11 applications were consistent, but disparities were found among RECs on decisions on seven applications. An (...) Download Export citation Bookmark 14 citations
Is 'inconsistency' in research ethics committee decision-making really a problem? An empirical investigation and reflection.E. L. Angell, C. J. Jackson, R. E. Ashcroft, A. Bryman, K. Windridge & M. Dixon-Woods - 2007 - Clinical Ethics 2 (2):92-99.details Research Ethics Committees (RECs) are frequently a focus of complaints from researchers, but evidence about the operation and decisions of RECs tends to be anecdotal. We conducted a systematic study to identify and compare the ethical issues raised in 54 letters to researchers about the same 18 applications submitted to three RECs over one year. The most common type of ethical trouble identified in REC letters related to informed consent, followed by scientific design and conduct, care and protection of research (...) Download Export citation Bookmark 10 citations
Should research ethics committees be told how to think?G. M. Sayers - 2007 - Journal of Medical Ethics 33 (1):39-42.details Research ethics committees are charged with providing an opinion on whether research proposals are ethical. These committees are overseen by a central office that acts for the Department of Health and hence the State. An advisory group has recently reported back to the Department of Health, recommending that it should deal with inconsistency in the decisions made by different RECs. This article questions the desirability and feasibility of questing for consistent ethical decisions. Download Export citation Bookmark 13 citations

1