BMJ 2000;320:1182-1183 ( 29 April )

Papers

Responses of local research ethics committees to a study with approval from a multicentre research ethics committee

Editorial by Alberti, pp   1179 , 1217

Andrew L Lux, clinical research fellow,  Stuart W Edwards, research coordinator,  John P Osborne, professor of paediatrics and child health. 

Children's Centre, Royal United Hospital, Combe Park, Bath BA1 3NG

Correspondence to: A L Lux andrew.lux@ruh-bath.swest.nhs.uk

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

Studies approved by multicentre research ethics committees in the United Kingdom are submitted to a local research ethics committee in each health district. Guidelines on handling such submissions were issued in September 1998.¹ The United Kingdom infantile spasm study was approved that same month: as members of the steering committee we attempted to assess the impact of the guidelines on the practice of local research ethics committees.

	Participants, methods, and results

We made 113 submissions on behalf of local investigators to 99 local research ethics committees between September 1998 and September 1999. We analysed the committees' responses to the first submission. A committee was classified as "fast track" if the administrator stated that the submission would be reviewed by an executive subcommittee, as recommended by the guidelines. Our main outcome measure was response time, defined as the number of days between arrival of the submission and the date on which written confirmation of the committee's decision was typed. . . . [Full text of this article]

CiteULike    Complore    Connotea    Del.icio.us    Digg    Reddit    StumbleUpon    Technorati    What's this?

Relevant Articles

Ebrahim's quartet
BMJ 2000 320: 0. [Full Text] [PDF]

Ebrahim's quartet
BMJ 2000 320: 0. [Full Text] [PDF]

Ethics approval for multicentre research is expensive, slow, and inconsistent
BMJ 2000 320: 0. [Full Text]

Multicentre research ethics committees: has the cure been worse than the disease?

K G M M Alberti
BMJ 2000 320: 1157-1158. [Extract] [Full Text] [PDF]

The new system of review by multicentre research ethics committees: prospective study

Joanna Tully, Nelly Ninis, Robert Booy, and Russell Viner
BMJ 2000 320: 1179-1182. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

The ethics of research ethics committees

Jon Nicholl
BMJ 2000 320: 1217. [Full Text]

This article has been cited by other articles:

• O'Reilly, M., Armstrong, N., Dixon-Woods, M. (2009). Subject positions in research ethics committee letters: a discursive analysis. Clin Ethics 4: 187-194 [Abstract] [Full text]  
• Angell, E, Dixon-Woods, M (2009). Do research ethics committees identify process errors in applications for ethical approval?. J. Med. Ethics 35: 130-132 [Abstract] [Full text]  
• Angell, E L, Bryman, A, Ashcroft, R E, Dixon-Woods, M (2008). An analysis of decision letters by research ethics committees: the ethics/scientific quality boundary examined. Qual Saf Health Care 17: 131-136 [Abstract] [Full text]  
• Rothman, K. J (2007). Commentary: Epidemiology still ascendant. Int J Epidemiol 36: 710-711 [Full text]  
• Angell, E, Sutton, A J, Windridge, K, Dixon-Woods, M (2006). Consistency in decision making by research ethics committees: a controlled comparison.. J. Med. Ethics 32: 662-664 [Abstract] [Full text]  
• Al-Shahi, R. (2005). Research ethics committees in the UK--the pressure is now on research and development departments. JRSM 98: 444-447 [Full text]  
• Dal-Re, R, Ortega, R, Morejon, E (2005). Multicentre trials review process by research ethics committees in Spain: where do they stand before implementing the new European regulation?. J. Med. Ethics 31: 344-350 [Abstract] [Full text]  
• Burke, G. S. (2005). Looking into the Institutional Review Board: Observations from Both Sides of the Table. J. Nutr. 135: 921-924 [Abstract] [Full text]  
• Ward, H. J T, Cousens, S. N, Smith-Bathgate, B., Leitch, M., Everington, D., Will, R. G, Smith, P. G (2004). Obstacles to conducting epidemiological research in the UK general population. BMJ 329: 277-279 [Full text]  
• Martyn, C. (2003). The ethical bureaucracy. QJM 96: 323-324 [Full text]  
• Maskell, N.A., Jones, E.L., Davies, R.J.O. (2003). Variations in experience in obtaining local ethical approval for participation in a multi-centre study. QJM 96: 305-307 [Abstract] [Full text]  
• Osborn, D P J, Fulford, K W M (2003). Psychiatric research: what ethical concerns do LRECs encounter? A postal survey. J. Med. Ethics 29: 55-56 [Abstract] [Full text]  
• Boyce, M. (2002). Observational study of 353 applications to London multicentre research ethics committee 1997-2000. BMJ 325: 1081-1081 [Full text]  
• Ferris, L. E. (2002). Industry-sponsored pharmaceutical trials and research ethics boards: Are they cloaked in too much secrecy?. CMAJ 166: 1279-1280 [Full text]  
• , J., , , , J. (2001). Ethical approval for research involving geographically dispersed subjects: unsuitability of the UK MREC/LREC system and relevance to uncommon genetic. J. Med. Ethics 27: 347-351 [Abstract] [Full text]  
• Hart, A. (2001). Mann-Whitney test is not just a test of medians: differences in spread can be important. BMJ 323: 391-393 [Full text]  

Rapid Responses:

Read all Rapid Responses

Ethical submission - sometimes a dream, often a nightmare

Marianne Mead
bmj.com, 5 May 2000 [Full text]

Differences for interviews or psychology assessments

Una M MacFAdyen
bmj.com, 9 May 2000 [Full text]

Globally harmonised research needs established research ethics committees

Vicente Alfaro
bmj.com, 9 May 2000 [Full text]

Online poll

Find out more on doc2doc >>