Order:
  1.  5
    Measuring inconsistency in research ethics committee review.Samantha Trace & Simon Erik Kolstoe - 2017 - BMC Medical Ethics 18 (1):65.
    The review of human participant research by Research Ethics Committees or Institutional Review Boards is a complex multi-faceted process that cannot be reduced to an algorithm. However, this does not give RECs/ IRBs permission to be inconsistent in their specific requirements to researchers or in their final opinions. In England the Health Research Authority coordinates 67 committees, and has adopted a consistency improvement plan including a process called “Shared Ethical Debate” where multiple committees review the same project. Committee reviews are (...)
    No categories
    Direct download (4 more)  
    Translate
     
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   5 citations  
  2.  6
    Measuring Inconsistency in Research Ethics Committee Review.Samantha Trace & Simon Erik Kolstoe - 2017 - BMC Medical Ethics 18 (1):1-10.
    Background The review of human participant research by Research Ethics Committees or Institutional Review Boards is a complex multi-faceted process that cannot be reduced to an algorithm. However, this does not give RECs/ IRBs permission to be inconsistent in their specific requirements to researchers or in their final opinions. In England the Health Research Authority coordinates 67 committees, and has adopted a consistency improvement plan including a process called “Shared Ethical Debate” where multiple committees review the same project. Committee reviews (...)
    Direct download (6 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   4 citations  
  3.  8
    Reviewing Code Consistency is Important, but Research Ethics Committees Must Also Make a Judgement on Scientific Justification, Methodological Approach and Competency of the Research Team.Samantha Trace & Simon Kolstoe - 2018 - Journal of Medical Ethics 44 (12):874-875.
    We have followed with interest the commentaries arising from Moore and Donnellys1 argument that authorities in charge of research ethics committees should focus primarily on establishing code-consistent reviews.1 We broadly agree with Savulescu’s2 argument that ethics committees should become more expert, but in a different way and for a different reason. We have recently been working with the UK Health Research Authority analysing the outcomes of their ‘Shared Ethical Debate’ exercises.3 Each ShED exercise involves the circulation of a single research (...)
    Direct download (3 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   1 citation