Reasons for resubmission of research projects to the research Ethics Committee of a university hospital in São Paulo, Brazil

Clinics

Volumn 64, Issue 9, 2009, Pages 831-836

  Bueno, Mariana ^a   Brevidelli, Maria Meimei ^a   Cocarelli, Thaís ^a   dos Santos, Gianni Mara Silva ^a   Ferraz, Maria Auxiliadora ^a   Mion Jr , Décio ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF SÃO PAULO   (Brazil)

Author keywords

Bioethics; Ethics in research; Research ethics committee

Indexed keywords

ANIMAL; ARTICLE; BRAZIL; CROSS-SECTIONAL STUDY; ETHICS; HUMAN; INFORMED CONSENT; MEDICAL RESEARCH; METHODOLOGY; PROFESSIONAL STANDARD; STANDARD; STATISTICS; UNIVERSITY HOSPITAL;

ANIMALS; BIOMEDICAL RESEARCH; BRAZIL; CONSENT FORMS; CROSS-SECTIONAL STUDIES; ETHICS COMMITTEES, RESEARCH; HOSPITALS, UNIVERSITY; HUMANS; RESEARCH DESIGN;

EID: 70349860152     PISSN: 18075932     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1590/S1807-59322009000900002     Document Type: Article

References (12)

1. The Nuremberg Code (1947). BMJ. 1996;313:1448.
2. World Medical Association - Declaration of Helsinki. JAMA. 1997;277:925-6.
3. The National Commission for the Protection of Human Subjects of Biomedical and Behavioral Research. The Belmont Report: ethical principles and guidelines for the protection of human subjects of research. Washington: U.S. Department of Health, Education, and Welfare. 1979:1-8.
4. Brasil. Conselho Nacional de Saúde. Resolução 196/96 sobre pesquisa envolvendo seres humanos. Diário Oficial da União, Brasília, 16. p.21082-5.
5. Colt HG, Mulnard RA. Writing an application for a human subjects institutional review board. Chest. 2006;130:1605-7.
6. Schramm FR. Aspectos cognitivos, metodológicos e morais do trabalho dos CEPs. In: Carneiro F (org). A moralidade dos atos científicos - questões emergentes dos Comitês de Ética em Pesquisa. Rio de Janeiro. Fiocruz, 1999.
7. a ed. São Paulo: Saraiva; 2006
8. Burke GS. Looking into the Institutional Review Board: observations from both sides of the table. J Nutr. 2005; 135:921-4.
9. Benatar SR. Reflections and recommendations on research ethics in developing countries. Social Sci & Med. 2002;54:1131-41.
10. Coleman CH, Bouësseau MC. How do we know that research ethics committees are really working? The neglected role of outcomes assessment in research ethics review. BMC Med Ethics. 2008;28;9:6.
11. Scmitz EF, Cunha DJD, Goldim JR. Índices de legibilidade em termos de consentimento informado de projetos de pesquisa do Hospital das Clínicas de Porto Alegre. Disponível em: . [Acesso em 7 jul. 2008].
12. Francisconi CF, Bulla MC, Benincasa C, Teixeira R, Goldim JR. Índice de legibilidade dos termos de consentimento informado, utilizados em procedimentos assistenciais no HCPA. Disponível em: . [Acesso em 7 jul. 2008].