Do research ethics committees identify process errors in applications for ethical approval?

Journal of Medical Ethics

Volumn 35, Issue 2, 2009, Pages 130-132

  Angell, E ^a   Dixon Woods, M ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF LEICESTER   (United Kingdom)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

ARTICLE; CLINICAL PROTOCOL; ETHICS; HUMAN; MEDICAL RESEARCH; PROFESSIONAL STANDARD; RESEARCH ETHICS; RESEARCH SUBJECT; STANDARD;

BIOMEDICAL RESEARCH; CLINICAL PROTOCOLS; ETHICS COMMITTEES, RESEARCH; ETHICS, RESEARCH; HUMANS; RESEARCH SUBJECTS;

EID: 59949085583     PISSN: 03066800     EISSN: 14734257     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1136/jme.2008.025940     Document Type: Article

References (18)

1. Jamrozik K. Research ethics paperwork: what is the plot we seem to have lost? BMJ 2004;329:286-7.
2. Wald D. Bureaucracy of ethics applications. BMJ 2004;329:282-4.
3. Warlow C. Clinical research under the cosh again. BMJ 2004;329:241-2.
4. Elwyn G, Seagrove A, Thorne K, et al. Ethics and research governance in a multicentre study: add 150 days to your study protocol. BMJ 2005;330:847.
5. Tully J, Ninis N, Booy R, et al. The new system of review by multicentre research ethics committees: prospective study. BMJ 2000;320:1179-82.
6. Ahmed AH, Nicholson KG. Delays and diversity in the practice of local research ethics committees. J Med Ethics 1996;22:263-6.
7. Lux A, Edwards S, Osborne J. Responses of local research ethics committees to a study with approval from a multicentre research ethics committee. BMJ 2000;320:1182-3.
8. Jones A, Bamford B. The other face of research governance. BMJ 2004;329:280-1.
9. Torgerson D, Dumville J. Ethics review in research: Research governance also delays research. BMJ 2004;328:710-a.
10. Galbraith N, Hawley C, De-Souza V. Research governance: research governance approval is putting people off research. BMJ 2006;332:238.
11. Hannigan B, Allen D. A tale of two studies: research governance issues arising from two ethnographic investigations into the organisation of health and social care. Int J Nurs Stud 2003;40:685-95.
12. Hotopf M, Wessely S, Noah N. Are ethical committees reliable? J R Soc Med 1995;88:31-3.
13. Maskell NA, Jones EL, Davies RJ. BTS/MRCMIST steering committee. Variations in experience in obtaining local ethical approval for participation in a multi-centre study. QJM 2003;96:305-7.
14. Altheide DL. Ethnographic content analysis. In: Lewis Beck MS, Bryman A, Liao TF, editors. The sage encyclopaedia of social science research methods. Thousand Oaks, Ca: Sage, 2004.
15. Angell E, Jackson CJ, Ashcroft RE, et al. Is 'inconsistency' in research ethics committee decision-making really a problem? An empirical investigation and reflection. Clin Ethics 2007;2:92-9.
16. Dixon-Woods M, Angell E, Ashcroft RE, et al. Written work: the social functions of research ethics committee letters. Soc Sci Med 2007;65:792-802.
17. Llewellyn-Jones S. An end to ethics committee control-freakery. Rapid response. BMJ 2001:322. http://www.bmj.com/cgi/eletters/322/7297/ 1294#15095 (accessed 10 Dec 2008).
18. Angell E, Bryman A, Ashcroft R, et al. An analysis of decision letters by research ethics committees: the science/ethics quality boundary examined. Qual Saf Health Care 2008;17:131-6.