David Bourget (Western Ontario)
David Chalmers (ANU, NYU)
Rafael De Clercq
Ezio Di Nucci
Jack Alan Reynolds
Learn more about PhilPapers
L. Porcu, D. Poli, V. Torri, E. Rulli, M. C. di Tullio, M. Cinquini, E. Bajetta, R. Labianca, F. di Costanzo, D. Nitti & I. Floriani
Journal of Medical Ethics 34 (10):747-750 (2008)
Aims and background: The present work assessed the impact of two decrees on ethics committees in Italy, aimed at bringing the national laws on the conduct of clinical trials into line with the rest of the EC, and regulating and facilitating not-for-profit research.Material and methods: Prospectively collected data from an Italian multicentre study were examined with respect to the ethics review process. Administrative and time elements of the review process were audited. Main outcome measures were time between the application submission and the ethics committee definitive opinion, type and number of application submission forms, number of ethics committees that refused fee exemption, and time between the ethics committee approval and the administrative authorisation.Results: A total of 134 local research ethics committees were approached. Application submission procedures and application forms varied greatly; paper submission was mandatory. The median time from submission to approval was 72 days. Only two LRECs refused the fee exemption. The median time from LREC approval to administrative agreement was 50 days and only 9.6% of local authorities came to a verbal agreement with the sponsor.Conclusions: Italian LRECs are still not sufficiently efficient in complying with the Directive 2001/20/EC requirement . Better coordination of LRECs work is needed although the optimal level of coordination between them is still not known. In the meantime, national guidelines are needed concerning the application of Directive 2001/20/EC. The behaviour of Italian LRECs towards not-for-profit research was excellent although only the fee exemption was requested.
|Keywords||No keywords specified (fix it)|
|Categories||categorize this paper)|
Setup an account with your affiliations in order to access resources via your University's proxy server
Configure custom proxy (use this if your affiliation does not provide a proxy)
|Through your library|
References found in this work BETA
No references found.
Citations of this work BETA
Robert Klitzman (2011). How Local IRBs View Central IRBs in the US. BMC Medical Ethics 12 (1):13.
Bette Anton (2010). CQ Sources/Bibliography. Cambridge Quarterly of Healthcare Ethics 19 (2):230.
Robert Klitzman (2011). How Local IRBs View Central IRBs in the US. BMC Medical Ethics 12 (1):13-.
Bette Anton (1999). CQ Sources/Bibliography. Cambridge Quarterly of Healthcare Ethics 8 (4):348-350.
Similar books and articles
Evelyne Decullier, Véronique Lhéritier & François Chapuis (2005). The Activity of French Research Ethics Committees and Characteristics of Biomedical Research Protocols Involving Humans: A Retrospective Cohort Study. [REVIEW] BMC Medical Ethics 6 (1):1-10.
Emma Fernandez Uzquiandeo, A. Gil Aguado, P. Lavilla Uriol, J. Frias Iniesta, R. Madero Jarabo & R. Alvarez-Sala Walther (2009). The Spectrum of Clinical Research with Medications in A Spanish University Hospital. Review of 1.000 Clinical Trials Evaluated by the Research Ethics Committee. [REVIEW] Open Ethics Journal 3 (1):20-27.
Marek Czarkowski (2006). The Protection of Patients' Rights in Clinical Trials. Science and Engineering Ethics 12 (1):131-138.
G. Hunt, C. Gannon & A. Gallagher (2012). Elements of an Engaged Clinical Ethics: A Qualitative Analysis of Hospice Clinical Ethics Committee Discussions. Clinical Ethics 7 (4):175-182.
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.
E. Turillazzi & V. Fineschi (2008). Preimplantation Genetic Diagnosis: A Step by Step Guide to Recent Italian Ethical and Legislative Troubles. Journal of Medical Ethics 34 (10):e21-e21.
Gheula Canarutto, Katherine T. Smith & Murphy Smith, Impact of an Ethics Presentation Used in America and Adapted for Italy: A Teaching Note.
Marion Danis (ed.) (2012). Clinical Research Consultation: A Casebook. Oxford University Press.
George J. Agich (2005). What Kind of Doing is Clinical Ethics? Theoretical Medicine and Bioethics 26 (1):7-24.
M. O'Reilly, N. Armstrong & M. Dixon-Woods (2009). Subject Positions in Research Ethics Committee Letters: A Discursive Analysis. Clinical Ethics 4 (4):187-194.
Teresa Moore & Kristy Richardson (2013). The Low Risk Research Ethics Application Process at CQUniversity Australia. Journal of Academic Ethics 11 (3):211-230.
R. Forde (2005). Clinical Ethics, Information, and Communication: Review of 31 Cases From a Clinical Ethics Committee. [REVIEW] Journal of Medical Ethics 31 (2):73-77.
Eric Racine (2008). Enriching Our Views on Clinical Ethics: Results of a Qualitative Study of the Moral Psychology of Healthcare Ethics Committee Members. [REVIEW] Journal of Bioethical Inquiry 5 (1):57-67.
Heather Draper (2008). Clinical Ethics Committee Case 1: Is There a Limit on the Extent to Which I Have to Be an Advocate for My Patient? Clinical Ethics 3 (1):4-6.
Added to index2010-08-24
Total downloads2 ( #660,601 of 1,790,567 )
Recent downloads (6 months)1 ( #433,815 of 1,790,567 )
How can I increase my downloads?