6 found
Order:
Disambiguations
Simon Kolstoe [5]Simon Erik Kolstoe [2]Simon E. Kolstoe [1]
  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 (2 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 (5 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  
  4.  13
    Can UK NHS Research Ethics Committees Effectively Monitor Publication and Outcome Reporting Bias?Rasheda Begum & Simon Kolstoe - 2015 - BMC Medical Ethics 16 (1):1-5.
    BackgroundPublication and outcome reporting bias is often caused by researchers selectively choosing which scientific results and outcomes to publish. This behaviour is ethically significant as it distorts the literature used for future scientific or clinical decision-making. This study investigates the practicalities of using ethics applications submitted to a UK National Health Service research ethics committee to monitor both types of reporting bias.MethodsAs part of an internal audit we accessed research ethics database records for studies submitting an end of study declaration (...)
    Direct download (6 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   2 citations  
  5.  11
    Trials Are Already Being Prioritised, Just Not at the Institutional Level.Simon Kolstoe - 2017 - Journal of Medical Ethics 43 (12):814-815.
    Successful clinical trials are important for all of us, but they can be extremely complicated to design and run, so work must be done to consider what commonly goes wrong and how these issues can be addressed. Gelinas et al suggest an ethical argument for institutional prioritisation of clinical trials conducted among limited populations. This is to ensure successful recruitment and prevent competing trials rendering each other irrelevant through lack of statistical power. But they overlook the fact that effective prioritisation (...)
    Direct download (5 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   1 citation  
  6.  2
    Research Approvals Iceberg: Helping It Melt Away.Simon E. Kolstoe & David Carpenter - 2019 - BMC Medical Ethics 20 (1):1-4.
    In their paper “Research approvals iceberg: how a ‘low-key’ study in England needed 89 professionals to approve it and how we can do better” Petrova and Barclay highlight concerns with the health research regulatory environment in the UK. As long-standing chairs of NHS research ethics committees, researchers, and also academics in research ethics, we are also often frustrated with the regulatory process in the UK. However, we think that Petrova and Barclay’s analysis is misleading because it conflates research ethics with (...)
    Direct download (4 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark