Should there be an accredited ethics committee system for centralised review of multicentre clinical research?

Medical Journal of Australia

Volumn 168, Issue 4, 1998, Pages 174-176

  Beran, Roy G ^a,b  

^a LIVERPOOL HOSPITAL   (Australia)

^b NONE   (Australia)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

ACCREDITATION; AUSTRALIA; LEGAL LIABILITY; MEDICAL ETHICS; META ANALYSIS; MULTICENTER STUDY; PRIVATE PRACTICE; PROFESSIONAL STANDARD; SHORT SURVEY;

EID: 0032536505     PISSN: 0025729X     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.5694/j.1326-5377.1998.tb126774.x     Document Type: Short Survey

References (8)

1. National Health and Medical Research Council. Australian Health Ethics Committee, Report of 1995 Ethics Workshops. Sydney: University of New South Wales, 1995.
2. Report of the review of the role and functioning of institutional ethics committees. Report to the Minister for Health and Family Services. Canberra: AGPS, March 1996.
3. Beran RG, Tilley M. Clinical trials of anti-epileptic drugs performed in the private practice setting. Epilepsia 1994; 35: 101-106.
4. Baume P. A question of balance: report on the future of drug evaluation in Australia. Canberra: AGPS, 1991.
5. Australian Pharmaceutical Manufacturers' Association (APMA). Guidelines for compensation for injury resulting from participation in a company-sponsored clinical trial. Sydney: APMA, May 1994.
6. Australian Pharmaceutical Manufacturers' Association (APMA). Form of indemnity for clinical trials. Sydney: APMA May 1994.
7. Stone PG, Blogg CE. National research ethics committee is needed [letter]. BMJ 1997; 315: 60-61.
8. Bekendtgørelse af lov om et videnskabsetisk komiteésystem og behandling af biomedicinske forskningsprojekter (Notice of the law of a science-ethical committee system and handling of biomedical research projects). Copenhagen: Sundhedsministeriet (Health Ministry) 1997; 1068: 95-780-27.