Informed consent for MRI and fMRI research: Analysis of a sample of Canadian consent documents

BMC Medical Ethics

Volumn 12, Issue 1, 2011, Pages

  Palmour, Nicole ^a   Affleck, William ^a,c   Bell, Emily ^a   Deslauriers, Constance ^a   Pike, Bruce ^c   Doyon, Julien ^b   Racine, Eric ^a,b,c  

^a CLIN RESEARCH INSTITUTE OF MONTREAL   (Canada)

^b UNIVERSITÉ DE MONTRÉAL   (Canada)

^c MCGILL UNIVERSITY   (Canada)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

ARTICLE; CANADA; COMPREHENSION; ETHICS; HUMAN; HUMAN EXPERIMENT; INCIDENTAL FINDING; INFORMED CONSENT; NUCLEAR MAGNETIC RESONANCE IMAGING; PROFESSIONAL STANDARD; RESEARCH SUBJECT; RETROSPECTIVE STUDY; STANDARD;

CANADA; COMPREHENSION; CONSENT FORMS; ETHICS COMMITTEES, RESEARCH; HUMANS; INCIDENTAL FINDINGS; INFORMED CONSENT; MAGNETIC RESONANCE IMAGING; NONTHERAPEUTIC HUMAN EXPERIMENTATION; RESEARCH SUBJECTS; RETROSPECTIVE STUDIES;

EID: 78651351932     PISSN: None     EISSN: 14726939     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1186/1472-6939-12-1     Document Type: Article

References (30)

1. What makes clinical research ethical? EJ Emmanuel D Wendler C Grady, JAMA 2000 283 20 2701 2710 10.1001/jama.283.20.2701 10819955
2. Johns Hopkins faces further criticism over experiments. D Josefson, BMJ 2001 323 7312 531 10.1136/bmj.323.7312.531 11546691
3. Controversy of the year. Biomedical ethics on the front burner. Science 2000 290 5500 2225 10.1126/science.290.5500.2225 11188706
4. Canadian governance of health research involving human subjects: is anybody minding the store? M McDonald, Health Law J 2001 9 1 21 12141216
5. Evidence-based practice of research ethics review? B Beagan M McDonald, Health Law Rev 2005 13 2-3 62 68 16459416
6. Warning flag for ethics boards. J Giles, Nature 2006 443 7108 127 10.1038/443127a 16971912
7. Warning flag for ethics boards. J Giles, Nature 2006 443 7108 127 10.1038/443127a 16971912 (Pubitemid 46423337)
8. Incidental findings on brain magnetic resonance imaging from 1000 asymptomatic volunteers. GL Katzman AP Dagher NJ Patronas, JAMA 1999 282 1 36 39 10.1001/jama.282.1.36 10404909 (Pubitemid 29318930)
9. Incidental findings in brain imaging research. J Illes MP Kirschen E Edwards LR Stanford P Bandettini MK Cho PJ Ford GH Glover J Kulynych R Macklin, et al. Science 2006 311 5762 783 784 10.1126/science.1124665 16469905 (Pubitemid 43228825)
10. fMRI in the public eye. E Racine O Bar-Ilan J Illes, Nat Rev Neurosci 2005 6 2 159 164 10.1038/nrn1609 15685221 (Pubitemid 40188949)
11. Brain imaging and brain privacy: a realistic concern? MJ Farah ME Smith C Gawuga D Lindsell D Foster, J Cog Neurosci 2009 21 1 119 127 10.1162/jocn.2009.21010
12. Three approaches to qualitative content analysis. HF Hsieh E Shannon Sarah, Qual Health Res 2005 15 9 1277 1288 10.1177/1049732305276687 16204405
13. Tri-Council Policy Statement: Ethical Conduct for Research Involving Humans. CIHR, NSERCC, SSHRCC, Ottawa: Public Works and Public Services Canada 2005 1998
14. Commissions and Biomedical Ethics: the Canadian Experience. JR Williams, J Med Philos 1989 14 4 425 444 2778415
15. Ethical neuroscience. Nat Neurosci 13 2 141 10.1038/nn0210-141 20104202
16. Perspectives of Canadian researchers on ethics review of neuroimaging research. C Deslauriers E Bell N Palmour B Pike J Doyon E Racine, J Empir Res Hum Res Ethics 2010 49 66 10.1525/jer.2010.5.1.49 20235863
17. Canadian research ethics boards, MRI research risks, and MRI risk classification. J Marshall MR Hadskis, IRB 2009 31 4 9 15 19697539
18. Safety first: Recognizing and managing the risks to child participants in magnetic resonance imaging research. MH Schmidt J Downie, Account Res 2009 16 3 153 173 20183159
19. Review of a mock research protocol in functional neuroimaging by Canadian research ethics boards. J de Champlain J Patenaude, J Med Ethics 2006 32 9 530 534 10.1136/jme.2005.012807 16943335 (Pubitemid 44390339)
20. University of Saskatchewan. v. Halushka, et al. 53 DLR (2d) 436 Saskatchewan Court of Appeal 1965
21. v Solomon Weiss, 48 CCLT 280 Quebec Supreme Court 1989
22. Local research ethics committee approval for a national study in Scotland. KW Ah-See J MacKenzie NS Thakker AG Maran, J R Coll Surg Edinb 1998 43 5 303 305 9803097 (Pubitemid 28474568)
23. Variability in institutional review board assessment of minimal-risk research. JM Hirshon SD Krugman MD Witting JP Furuno MR Limcangco AR Perisse EK Rasch, Acad Emerg Med 2002 9 12 1417 1420 10.1111/j.1553-2712.2002.tb01612.x 12460847 (Pubitemid 35416537)
24. Impact of IRB requirements on a multicenter survey of prophylactic mastectomy outcomes. SM Greene AM Geiger EL Harris A Altschuler L Nekhlyudov MB Barton SJ Rolnick JG Elmore S Fletcher, Ann Epidemiol 2006 16 4 275 278 10.1016/j.annepidem.2005.02.016 16005245
25. Variation in Institutional Review processes for a multisite observational study. CC Vick KR Finan C Kiefe L Neumayer MT Hawn, Am J Surg 2005 190 5 805 809 10.1016/j.amjsurg.2005.07.024 16226962 (Pubitemid 41446509)
26. Ethical dilemmas of a large national multi-centre study in Australia: time for some consistency. A Driscoll J Currey L Worrall-Carter S Stewart, J Clin Nurs 2008 17 16 2212 2220 10.1111/j.1365-2702.2007.02219.x 18705740
27. U. S. Health researchers review their ethics review boards: A qualitative study. S Burris K Moss, J Empir Res Hum Res Ethics 2006 1 2 39 58 10.1525/jer.2006.1.2.39 19385877
28. A review finds that multicenter studies face substantial challenges but strategies exist to achieve Institutional Review Board approval. SM Greene AM Geiger, J Clin Epidemiol 2006 59 8 784 790 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2005.11.018 16828670 (Pubitemid 43975723)
29. Draft 2nd Edition of the Tri-Council Policy Statement: Ethical Conduct for Research Involving Humans. Interagency Advisory Panel on Research Ethics, Ottawa 2008
30. Ethics guidelines strengthened but reach remains limited. L Eggertson, CMAJ 2009 180 4 2