Trust and confidence: towards mutual acceptance of ethics committee approval of multicentre studies
- PMID: 15546452
- DOI: 10.1111/j.1445-5994.2004.00685.x
Trust and confidence: towards mutual acceptance of ethics committee approval of multicentre studies
Abstract
Aims: To compare issues raised by Human Research Ethics Committees (HREC) during the ethics review process and to determine the length of time taken to gain HREC approval for multicentre research studies.
Methods: Review and analysis of HREC documentation and correspondence for all multicentre research studies were conducted through three HREC under the auspices of Cancer Trials Australia, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia, between November 1997 and March 2001 to determine the variance of documentation, correspondence and recommendations across the three HREC and the time taken for study approval.
Results: Thirty-one projects were submitted to any two of the HREC (16 studies) or all three HREC (15 studies). The median time for study approval at an individual HREC was 75 days, but it was 111 days for approval at all participating sites. There were 554 clarifications or comments made by the reviewing HREC, the majority of which had no significant bearing on the ethical or scientific calibre of the study. There was only one study in which a significant protocol change was requested by a HREC.
Conclusions: Multicentre study approvals are delayed when submitted to multiple HREC. The three HREC raised similar issues without substantive differences in their recommendations. A process for the mutual acceptance of HREC recommendations could facilitate multicentre research.
Comment in
-
Ethics committee approval of multicentre studies.Intern Med J. 2005 May;35(5):311-2; author reply 312. doi: 10.1111/j.1445-5994.2005.00827.x. Intern Med J. 2005. PMID: 15845120 No abstract available.
-
Multiple competing interests surround ethical review of clinical trials.Intern Med J. 2005 Nov;35(11):686-7. doi: 10.1111/j.1445-5994.2005.00951.x. Intern Med J. 2005. PMID: 16248869 No abstract available.
Similar articles
-
Ethics committee reviews and mutual acceptance: a pilot study.Intern Med J. 2005 Nov;35(11):650-4. doi: 10.1111/j.1445-5994.2005.00927.x. Intern Med J. 2005. PMID: 16248858
-
Multiple competing interests surround ethical review of clinical trials.Intern Med J. 2005 Nov;35(11):686-7. doi: 10.1111/j.1445-5994.2005.00951.x. Intern Med J. 2005. PMID: 16248869 No abstract available.
-
Ethical dilemmas of a large national multi-centre study in Australia: time for some consistency.J Clin Nurs. 2008 Aug;17(16):2212-20. doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2702.2007.02219.x. J Clin Nurs. 2008. PMID: 18705740
-
A review finds that multicenter studies face substantial challenges but strategies exist to achieve Institutional Review Board approval.J Clin Epidemiol. 2006 Aug;59(8):784-90. doi: 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2005.11.018. Epub 2006 Mar 15. J Clin Epidemiol. 2006. PMID: 16828670 Review.
-
The ethics of obtaining consent in labour for research.Aust N Z J Obstet Gynaecol. 2011 Dec;51(6):485-92. doi: 10.1111/j.1479-828X.2011.01341.x. Epub 2011 Sep 20. Aust N Z J Obstet Gynaecol. 2011. PMID: 21929542 Review.
Cited by
-
Regulatory delays in a multinational clinical stroke trial.Eur Stroke J. 2021 Jun;6(2):120-127. doi: 10.1177/23969873211004845. Epub 2021 Mar 30. Eur Stroke J. 2021. PMID: 34414286 Free PMC article.
-
Research ethics committees in the UK--the pressure is now on research and development departments.J R Soc Med. 2005 Oct;98(10):444-7. doi: 10.1177/014107680509801007. J R Soc Med. 2005. PMID: 16199810 Free PMC article. Review. No abstract available.
Publication types
MeSH terms
LinkOut - more resources
Full Text Sources