Differentiating between audit and research

BMJ

Volumn 320, Issue 7236, 2000, Pages 713-

  Warlow, Charles P ^a   Shahi, Rustam al ^a   Scott, P V ^b  

^a WESTERN GENERAL HOSPITAL   (United Kingdom)

^b ALEXANDRA HOSPITAL   (United Kingdom)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 85007654760     PISSN: 09598138     EISSN: 14685833     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1136/bmj.320.7236.713/a     Document Type: Letter

References (9)

1. Wilson A, Grimshaw G, Baker R, Thompson J. Differentiating between audit and research: postal survey of health authorities' views. BMJ 1999; 319: 1235. (6 November.)
2. Al-Shahi R, Warlow CP. Ethical approval of a multicentre study in Scotland: a weighty problem. J R Coll Physicians Lond 1999; 33(6): 549–552.
3. Dyer C. BMA's patient confidentiality rules are deemed unlawful. BMJ 1999; 319: 1221. (6 November.)
4. Royal College of Physicians of London. Guidelines on the practice of ethics committees in medical research involving human subjects. 3rd ed. London: RCP, 1996.
5. Wilson A, Grimshaw G, Baker R, Thompson J. Differentiating between audit and research: postal survey of health authorities' views. BMJ 1999; 319: 1235. (November 6.)
6. Kirkpatrick EM, ed. Chambers 20th Century Dictionary. London: Chambers, 1983.
7. Scott PV, Pinnock CA. BMA's advice about approval of clinical audit studies is confusing. BMJ 1997; 315: 60.
8. Notice to contributors. Anaesthesia 1997; 52: inside back page.
9. Clinical Audit Committee. Ethical issues in audit. London: BMA, 1995.