Trust and confidence: Towards mutual acceptance of ethics committee approval of multicentre studies

Internal Medicine Journal

Volumn 34, Issue 11, 2004, Pages 598-603

  Sarson Lawrence, M ^a   Alt, C ^a   Mok, M T ^a   Dodds, M ^a   Rosenthal, Mark A ^a,b  

^a Cancer Trials Australia   (Australia)

^b ROYAL MELBOURNE HOSPITAL   (Australia)

Author keywords

Ethical review; Ethics committees; Multicentre studies

Indexed keywords

AUSTRALIA; CANCER RESEARCH; CLINICAL RESEARCH; CLINICAL TRIAL; HUMAN; MEDICAL DOCUMENTATION; MEDICAL ETHICS; MEDICAL RESEARCH; MULTICENTER STUDY; PRIORITY JOURNAL; REVIEW;

BIOMEDICAL AND BEHAVIORAL RESEARCH; EMPIRICAL APPROACH;

AUSTRALIA; ETHICAL REVIEW; ETHICS COMMITTEES, CLINICAL; ETHICS COMMITTEES, RESEARCH; HUMANS; MULTICENTER STUDIES; TRUST;

EID: 9744277495     PISSN: 14440903     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1111/j.1445-5994.2004.00685.x     Document Type: Review

References (18)

1. Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America (PhRMA). PhRMA Annual Membership Survey, 2002; European Federation of Pharmaceutical Industries and Associations, 2000-2001: the Year in Review, 2001. Washington: PhRMA [cited 13 November 2002]. Available from: URL: http:// www.phrma.org/publications/ publications//2002-11-08.614.pdf
2. Tufts Center for the Study of Drug Development (CSDD). Outlook 2002. [Internet]. Boston: CSDD; 2002; [cited 13 November 2002]. Available from: URL: http://csdd.tufts.edu/ InfoServices/OutlookPDFs/Outlook2002.pdf.
3. DiMasi JA. New drug development in US 1963-1999. Clin Pharmacol Ther 2000; 69: 286-96.
4. Dove A. Ethicists bemoan shortened clinical trial approval time. Nat Med 1999; 5: 1336.
5. European Federation of Pharmaceutical Industries and Associations. Industry expresses concern about clinical trials rules. European Report 2002; 4: 341.
6. Anon. Report shows how patients benefit from taking part in clinical trials. BMJ 2002; 324: 1474.
7. Braunholtz DA, Edwards SJL, Lilford RJ. Are randomized clinical trials good for us (in the short term)? Evidence for a 'trial effect'. J Clin Epidemiol 2001; 54: 217-24.
8. National Health and Medical Research Council. National Statement on Ethical Conduct in Research Involving Humans. Canberra: Commonwealth of Australia; 1999.
9. National Health and Medical Research Council. Section 3: Multi-centre research. In: National Statement on Ethical Conduct in Research Involving Humans. Canberra: Commonwealth of Australia; 1999. Section 3.4.
10. National Health and Medical Research Council. Section 2: Human research ethics committees. In: National Statement on Ethical Conduct in Research Involving Humans. Canberra: Commonwealth of Australia; 1999.
11. Slater EE. IRB reform. N Engl J Med 2002; 346: 1402-4.
12. Burman WJ, Reves RR, Cohn DL, Schooley RT. Breaking the camel's back: Multicenter clinical trials and local institutional review boards. Ann Intern Med 2001; 134: 152-7.
13. Tully J, Ninis N, Booy R, Viner R. The new system of review by multicentre research ethics committees: prospective study. BMJ 2000; 320: 1179-82.
14. Levine RJ, Lasagna L. Demystifying central review boards: current options and future directions. IRB 2000; 22: 1-9.
15. Alberti KGMM. Multicentre research ethics committees: has the cure been worse than the disease? BMJ 2000; 320: 1157-8.
16. National Health and Medical Research Council. HREC Bulletin of The Australian Health Ethics Committee, No. 2, March 2001. Canberra: National Health and Medical Research Council; 2001.
17. Stacey TE. Ethical review of research in the NHS: the need for change. J R Coll Physicians Lond 1998; 32: 190-92.
18. Pearn JH. The realities of ethical review of research in Australia. Med J Aust 1999; 171: 38-9.