Review by a local medical research ethics committee of the conduct of approved research projects, by examination of patients' case notes, consent forms, and research records and by interview

British Medical Journal

Volumn 314, Issue 7094, 1997, Pages 1588-1590

  Smith, Trevor ^a   Moore, Edward J H ^a   Tunstall Pedoe, Hugh ^b  

^a King's Cross Hospital   (United Kingdom)

^b UNIVERSITY OF DUNDEE   (United Kingdom)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

ARTICLE; CLINICAL PROTOCOL; DRUG SURVEILLANCE PROGRAM; FOLLOW UP; HUMAN; INFORMED CONSENT; INTERVIEW; MEDICAL ETHICS; MEDICAL RECORD; MEDICAL RESEARCH; PRIORITY JOURNAL;

EID: 0031004701     PISSN: 09598146     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1136/bmj.314.7094.1588     Document Type: Article

References (9)

1. Meade TW. The trouble with ethics committees. J R Coll Physicians Lond 1994;28:102-4.
2. Redshaw ME, Harris A, Baum JD. Research ethics committee audit - differences between committees. J Med Ethics 1996;22:78-82.
3. Harries OJ, Fentem PH, Tuxworth W, Hoinville GW. Local research ethics committees widely differing responses to a national survey protocol. J R Coll Physicians Lond 1994;28:150-4.
4. Powell DEB. Local research ethics committees - hindrance or help. Br J Obstet Gynaecol 1995;102:671-2.
5. Alberti KGMM. Local research ethics committees. BMJ 1995;311:639-40.
6. Tunstall-Pedoe H. Local committees have strengths too. BMJ 1995; 311:1570-1.
7. Royal College of Physicians. Guidelines on the practice of ethics committees in medical research involving human subjects. 3rd ed. London: RCP, 1996.
8. Royal College of Psychiatrists. Guidelines for research ethics committees on psychiatric research involving human subjects. Psychiatr Bull 1990; 14:48-61.
9. Department of Health, NHS Management Executive. Local research ethics committees. London: Department of Health, 1991. (Section 2.14.)