Canadian research ethics boards and multisite research: Experiences from two minimal-risk studies

IRB Ethics and Human Research

Volumn 32, Issue 3, 2010, Pages 11-18

  Racine, Eric ^a   Bell, Emily ^a   Deslauriers, Constance ^a  

^a CLIN RESEARCH INSTITUTE OF MONTREAL   (Canada)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

ARTICLE; CANADA; ETHICS; HUMAN; HUMAN EXPERIMENT; MULTICENTER STUDY; ORGANIZATION AND MANAGEMENT; PROFESSIONAL STANDARD;

CANADA; EFFICIENCY, ORGANIZATIONAL; ETHICS COMMITTEES, RESEARCH; HUMAN EXPERIMENTATION; HUMANS; MULTICENTER STUDIES AS TOPIC;

EID: 77954011626     PISSN: 01937758     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: None     Document Type: Article

References (20)

1. Greene SM, Geiger AM. A review finds that multicenter studies face substantial challenges but strategies exist to achieve institutional review board approval. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology 2006; 59:784-790.
2. Hebert P, Saginur R. Research ethics review: Do it once and do it well. Canadian Medical Association Journal 2009; 180:597-598.
3. Canadian Institutes of Health Research, Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada, Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada. Tri-Council Policy Statement: Ethical Conduct for Research Involving Humans. Ottawa, ON, Canada: Public Works and Public Services Canada, 1998, sec. 1.1.
4. See ref. 3, Tri-Council Policy Statement 1998, sec. 1.11.
5. Interagency Advisory Panel of Research Ethics. Draft 2nd Edition of the Tri-Council Policy Statement: Ethical Conduct for Research Involving Humans. Ottawa, ON, Canada, 2008.
6. See ref. 1, Greene and Geiger 2006.
7. Ah-See KW, MacKenzie J, Thakker NS, et al. Local research ethics committee approval for a national study in Scotland. Journal of the Royal College of Surgeons of Edinburgh 1998; 43:303-305;
8. Hirshon JM, Krugman SD, Wittin MD, et al. Variability in institutional review board assessment of minimal-risk research. Academic Emergency Medicine 2002; 9:1417-1420;
9. Dziak K, Anderson R, Sevik MA, et al. Variations among institutional review board reviews in a multisite health services research study. Health Services Research 2005; 40:279-290; (Pubitemid 40229360)
10. Green LA, Lowery JC, Kowalski CP, et al. Impact of institutional review board practice variation on observational health services research. Health Services Research 2006; 41:214-230;
11. Greene SM, Geiger AM, Harris EL, et al. Impact of IRB requirements on a multicenter survey of prophylactic mastectomy outcomes. Annals of Epidemiology 2006; 16:275-278;
12. Vick CC, Finan KR, Kiefe C, et al. Variation in institutional review processes for a multisite observational study. American Journal of Surgery 2005; 190:805-809. (Pubitemid 41446509)
13. See ref. 5, Interagency Advisory Panel of Research Ethics 2008, 82-85.
14. National Health and Medical Research Council, Australian Research Council, Australian Vice-Chancellors' Committee. National Statement on Ethical Conduct in Human Research. Canberra, Australia: National Health and Medical Research Council, 2007, sec. 5.3.1, p. 87.
15. Koski G, Aungst J, Kupersmith J, et al. Cooperative research ethics review boards: A win-win solution? IRB: Ethics & Human Research 2005; 27(3):1-7.
16. Enzle ME, Schmaltz R. Ethics review of multi-centre clinical trials in Canada. Health Law Review 2005; 13:51-57;
17. Unité de l'éthique, Direction générale adjointe de l'évaluation, de la recherche et de l'innovation, Ministère de la santé et des services sociaux. Mécanisme entourant l'examen éthique et le suivi continu des projets multicentriques, Gouvernement du Québec, QC, 2008.
18. See ref. 5, Interagency Advisory Panel of Research Ethics 2008, p. 83.
19. See ref. 5, Interagency Advisory Panel of Research Ethics 2008, p. 84-85.
20. See ref. 2, Hebert and Saginur 2009.