The activity of French Research Ethics Committees and characteristics of biomedical research protocols involving humans: a retrospective cohort study
BMC Medical Ethics 6 (1):1-10 (2005)
| Abstract | Background Clinical trials throughout the world must be evaluated by research ethics committees. No one has yet attempted to clearly quantify at the national level the activity of ethics committees and describe the characteristics of the protocols submitted. The objectives of this study were to describe 1) the workload and the activity of Research Ethics Committees in France, and 2) the characteristics of protocols approved on a nation-wide basis. Methods Retrospective cohort of 976 protocols approved by a representative sample of 25/48 of French Research Ethics Committees in 1994. Protocols characteristics (design, study size, investigator), number of revisions requested by the ethics committee before approval, time to approval and number of amendments after approval were collected for each protocol by trained research assistant using the committee's files and archives. Results Thirty-one percent of protocols were approved with no modifications requested in 16 days (95% CI: 14–17). The number of revisions requested by the committee, and amendments submitted by the investigator was on average respectively 39 (95% CI: 25–53) and 37 (95% CI: 27–46), per committee and per year. When revisions were requested, the main reasons were related to information to the patient (28%) and consent modalities (18%). Drugs were the object of research in 68% of the protocols examined. The majority of the research was national (80%) with a predominance of single-centre studies. Workload per protocol has been estimated at twelve and half hours on average for administrative support and at eleven and half hours for expertise. Conclusion The estimated workload justifies specific and independent administrative and financial support for Research Ethics Committees. | |||||||||
| Keywords | No keywords specified (fix it) | |||||||||
| Categories | ||||||||||
| Options |
|
|||||||||
Download options| PhilPapers Archive |
Upload a copy of this paper Check publisher's policy on self-archival Papers currently archived: 5,705 |
| External links |
 |
| Through your library | Configure |
Similar books and articlesAkira Akabayashi, Brian T. Slingsby, Noriko Nagao, Ichiro Kai & Hajime Sato (2007). An Eight-Year Follow-Up National Study of Medical School and General Hospital Ethics Committees in Japan. BMC Medical Ethics 8 (1):1-8.
François-André Isambert (1989). Ethics Committees in France. Journal of Medicine and Philosophy 14 (4):445-456.
R. Dal-Re, J. Espada & R. Ortega (1999). Performance of Research Ethics Committees in Spain. A Prospective Study of 100 Applications for Clinical Trial Protocols on Medicines. Journal of Medical Ethics 25 (3):268-273.
Hany Sleem, Samer S. El-Kamary & Henry J. Silverman (2010). Identifying Structures, Processes, Resources and Needs of Research Ethics Committees in Egypt. BMC Medical Ethics 11 (1):12-.
Paolo Cattorini (1993). Bioethics and Ethics Committees in Italy. The Present Situation and the Perspectives. NTM International Journal of History and Ethics of Natural Sciences, Technology and Medicine 1 (1):129-136.
David Shaw (2011). The Ethics Committee as Ghost Author. Journal of Medical Ethics 37 (12):706-706.
Marcel J. H. Kenter (forthcoming). Regulating Human Participants Protection in Medical Research and the Accreditation of Medical Research Ethics Committees in the Netherlands. Journal of Academic Ethics.
Paulina Tindana & Okyere Boateng (2008). The Ghana Experience. Journal of Academic Ethics 6 (4).
Marek Czarkowski & Krzysztof Różanowski (2009). Polish Research Ethics Committees in the European Union System of Assessing Medical Experiments. Science and Engineering Ethics 15 (2).
Reidar Pedersen, Victoria Akre & Reidun Førde (2009). Barriers and Challenges in Clinical Ethics Consultations: The Experiences of Nine Clinical Ethics Committees. Bioethics 23 (8):460-469.
Celia B. Fisher, Susan Z. Kornetsky & Ernest D. Prentice (2007). Determining Risk in Pediatric Research with No Prospect of Direct Benefit: Time for a National Consensus on the Interpretation of Federal Regulations. American Journal of Bioethics 7 (3):5 – 10.
Dennis John Mazur (2007). Evaluating the Science and Ethics of Research on Humans: A Guide for Irb Members. Johns Hopkins University Press.
Jérôme Ateudjieu, John Williams, Marie Hirtle, Cédric Baume, Joyce Ikingura, Alassane Niaré & Dominique Sprumont (2010). Training Needs Assessment in Research Ethics Evaluation Among Research Ethics Committee Members in Three African Countries: Cameroon, Mali and Tanzania. Developing World Bioethics 10 (2):88-98.
Analytics
Monthly downloads
Sorry, there are not enough data points to plot this chart.
|
Added to index2010-11-17Total downloads0Recent downloads (6 months)0How can I increase my downloads? |
My notes
Discussion
