Inclusive, engaged, and accountable institutional review boards

Anderson, Emily E.; Johnson, Ann; Lynch, Holly Fernandez

doi:10.1080/08989621.2023.2220884

Cited by 1 publication

(1 citation statement)

References 22 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Eventually, we believe, resources can help and improve the quality of the ethical review process for everyone including applicants, REC members, and research participants. At present, there are no established measures to evaluate the quality and effectiveness of RECs (Anderson et al, 2023). This is likely because the process of research ethics applications and approvals are based on ethical and regulatory standards that are subjectively applied (Lynch et al, 2022).…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Resources to Aid Ethical Review of Clinical Studies: An Exploratory Scoping Review Identifying Gaps and Opportunities

Pittelkow,

Strech

2023

Preprint

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

BackgroundResearch Ethics Committees (RECs) review the ethical, legal, and methodological standard of clinical research. However, complying with all requirements and professional expectations while maintaining the necessary scientific and ethical standards can be challenging for applicants and members of the REC alike. There is a need for easily accessible and clear guidelines and resources to help medical researchers and REC members navigate the legal and ethical requirements and the process of their review.MethodsWe employed an explorative search for resources on the websites of relevant stakeholders including 12 national umbrella associations (six German-language and six English-language), three English-language international umbrella associations, and 16 national REC’s of major university hospitals (eight German- and eight English-language). We mapped the identified resources onto the guiding principles of ethical clinical research and 35 related checkpoints. To describe the content of the resources we conducted a thematic analysis.ResultsWe extracted a total of 233 resources, including templates (n= 134, 58.5%), guidelines/recommendations (n= 62, 26.6%), checklists (n= 23, 9.9%), tools (n= 5, 2.2%), flowcharts (n= 5, 2.2%), glossaries (n= 3, 1.3%), and one (0.4%) software program. We extracted 101 German and 132 English resources created between 2004 and 2023. The majority (n =204; 87.6%) could be assigned to one checkpoint. The remaining 29 (12.5%) resources were considered unspecific (e.g., a checklist which documents to be submitted for a German drug trial). The specific resources are discussed per checkpoint.ConclusionWhile much support is available for some aspects such as participant information and informed consent forms, it is lacking in other areas such as study design, analysis, and biometrics. More support should be provided in these areas to ensure that research projects are methodologically sound. A more detailed analysis of the quality of available resources could help identify other areas of need.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%