Ethics review of research and audit

doi:10.1136/bmj.330.7489.431

BMJ 2005;330:431-432 (26 February), doi:10.1136/bmj.330.7489.431

Editorial

Ethics review of research and audit

Journals should not abdicate their responsibility

The first 150 words of the full text of this article appear below.

What is the difference between audit and research? This maybe an impossible question to answer although it hasn't stoppedpeople trying. The distinction has important consequences, asDerick Wade points out in this issue, one of which is that manyethics committees exclude audit studies from their remit (p 468).¹ Responsibility for classification of a study as researchor audit currently rests primarily with the investigator. Aquestion that we are asked frequently is whether or not approvalfrom an ethics committee is required for audit. A second questionis whether or not journals consider studies that do not haveapproval from an ethics committee.

Researchers understand why ethical approval is required forresearch. Many investigators also understand that seeking approvalfrom an ethics committee has become a burdensome bureaucracy.In these pages, we spelt out the difficulties researchers—bethey devotees of research or dabblers in . . . [Full text of this article]

Kamran Abbasi, acting editor

BMJ(kabbasi@bmj.com)

Iona Heath, chair

BMJ ethics committee

CiteULike

Complore

Connotea

Del.icio.us Add to Digg

Digg

StumbleUpon Add to Technorati

Technorati What's this?

Relevant Article

Ethics, audit, and research: all shades of grey: Derick T Wade
BMJ 2005 330: 468-471. [Extract] [Full Text] [PDF]

This article has been cited by other articles:

Reynolds, J, Crichton, N, Fisher, W, Sacks, S (2008). Determining the need for ethical review: a three-stage Delphi study. J. Med. Ethics 34: 889-894 [Abstract] [Full text]
Edwards, S J L, Omar, R (2008). Ethics review of research: in pursuit of proportionality. J. Med. Ethics 34: 568-572 [Abstract] [Full text]