Evaluation of Serious Adverse Event Reporting Forms for Clinical Trials: A Comparative Korean Study

2020 ◽  
Vol 15 (5) ◽  
pp. 415-424
Author(s):  
Heeyoung Lee ◽  
Cholong Park ◽  
Jinwon Choi ◽  
Seongeun Jeong ◽  
Hyunin Cho ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Clinical Trials ◽  
Ethics Committees ◽  
Well Being ◽  
Adverse Event Reporting ◽  
Institutional Review Boards ◽  
Serious Adverse Events ◽  
Institutional Review ◽  
Current Content ◽  
Korean Study ◽  
Human Participants

Safety surveillance, using appropriately consistent review criteria, could improve human participants’ well-being in clinical trials. To establish a globally consistent framework, the quality of the current content for review by institutional review boards (IRBs), as mandatory oversight entities, requires evaluation. This study collected and analyzed forms reporting serious adverse events (SAEs) to IRBs/ Research Ethics Committees(RECs) to compare them with the well-structured form presented in the literature using completeness and accuracy scores. We found sub-optimal completeness and accuracy scores when compared with perfect scores ( p < .05). Less than half of the retrieved forms had queries on causality assessment (≤43.1%). Thus, contents of SAE forms require improvement for IRB oversight and, further, there is a need to develop a well-structured form that could improve international consistency.

Research with Human Participants in the United States

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Carl H. Coleman
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
Clinical Trials ◽  
Conflicts Of Interest ◽  
The United States ◽  
Institutional Review Boards ◽  
Federal Regulations ◽  
Institutional Review ◽  
Regulatory Standards ◽  
Human Participants ◽  
Key Aspects

This chapter discusses research with human participants in the United States, most of which has been subject to federal regulations requiring prospective ethical oversight by entities known as institutional review boards (IRBs) since the 1970s. Research that is subject to the federal regulations may not begin until IRB approval has been obtained. The chapter begins by examining key aspects of the federal regulations governing IRB review of research with human participants, including the type of activities that fall under the IRB’s jurisdiction, how IRBs are organized, and some of the key substantive standards that IRBs apply. It then looks at additional regulatory standards that apply to studies involving particular populations, including pregnant women and fetuses, prisoners, and children. Finally, the chapter examines several other bodies of law related to research with human participants, including policies governing the inclusion of women and racial minorities in clinical trials; legal principles governing compensation for injuries to research participants; and requirements for registering clinical trials, reporting trial results, and disclosing research-related conflicts of interest.

Differences between research ethics committees

2007 ◽  
Vol 23 (1) ◽  
pp. 17-23 ◽  
Author(s):  
Sarah J. L. Edwards ◽  
Tracey Stone ◽  
Teresa Swift
Keyword(s):  
Research Ethics ◽  
Ethics Committees ◽  
Institutional Review Boards ◽  
Research Ethics Committees ◽  
Ethical Considerations ◽  
Local Conditions ◽  
Ethical Judgments ◽  
Risks And Benefits ◽  
The United Kingdom ◽  
Institutional Review

Objectives:To examine differences in the ethical judgments made by Research Ethics Committees (RECs) or Institutional Review Boards (IRBs).Methods:We did a review of the literature and included any study that attempted to compare the ethical judgments made by different RECs or IRBs when reviewing one or more protocol.Results:There were twenty-six articles reporting such discrepancies across Europe, within the United Kingdom, Spain, and United States. Of these studies, there were only five reports of some RECs approving while others rejecting the same protocol. All studies, however, reported differences in the clarifications and revisions asked of researchers regarding consent, recruitment, risks and benefits, compensation arrangements, and scientific issues.Conclusions:The studies were generally anecdotal reports of researchers trying to do research. New rules requiring a single ethical opinion for multi-site research at least in European Member States may simply conceal problematic issues in REC decision making. In the last analysis, we should expect a certain degree of variation and differences if we are to keep a committee system of review, although there is a pressing need to investigate the way in which RECs make these judgments. In particular, we need to identify the source of any aberrations, distortions, or confusions that could arbitrarily affect these judgments. Furthermore, local conditions remain important ethical considerations and should not be sidelined in pursuit of greater “consistency.”

scholarly journals Implementing a National Approach to Research Ethics Review during a Pandemic – the Irish Experience

2020 ◽  
Vol 3 ◽  
pp. 63
Author(s):  
Aileen Sheehy ◽  
Jennifer Ralph James ◽  
Mary Horgan
Keyword(s):  
Research Ethics ◽  
Ethics Committees ◽  
Well Being ◽  
Lessons Learned ◽  
Research Ethics Committees ◽  
Ethics Review ◽  
Research Ethics Review ◽  
Human Participants ◽  
High Standards ◽  
National Approach

The surge of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) research studies involving human participants in response to the pandemic has meant that research ethics committees across the world have been challenged to adapt their processes to meet demand while retaining high standards of review. Ethics review during this pandemic remains essential to ensure the safety, dignity and well-being of research participants, however research ethics committees are now faced with new, and often complex, ethics considerations and logistical challenges. This Open Letter looks specifically at the Irish experience of establishing a national approach to research ethics review amidst a global pandemic. This represents Ireland’s first National Research Ethics Committee, which provided the research community with an expedited and ‘single national opinion’ for ethics review for COVID-related research. The insights gleaned and lessons learned from the Irish experience may inform emergency responses to future pandemics or public health emergencies.

scholarly journals Ethical Guidelines for Publishing in the Journal of Cachexia, Sarcopenia and Muscle Clinical Reports

2016 ◽  
Vol 1 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Stephan Von Haehling ◽  
Nicole Ebner ◽  
John E Morley ◽  
Andrew JS Coats ◽  
Stefan D Anker
Keyword(s):  
Conflicts Of Interest ◽  
Research Work ◽  
Ethics Committees ◽  
Institutional Review Boards ◽  
Original Research ◽  
Ethical Guidelines ◽  
Abstract Form ◽  
Institutional Review ◽  
Ethical Authorship ◽  
Available Information

AbstractThis article details the principles of ethical authorship and publishing in the Journal of Cachexia, Sarcopenia and Muscle Clinical Reports (JCSM Clinical Reports). At the time of submission to JCSM Clinical Reports, the corresponding author, on behalf of all co-authors, needs to certify adherence to these principles. The principles are obtained below: All authors listed on a manuscript considered for publication have approved its submission and (if accepted) publication as provided to JCSM Clinical Reports;No person having a right to be recognized as author has been omitted from the list of authors on the submitted manuscript;The submitted work is original and is neither under consideration elsewhere nor has it been published previously in whole or in part other than in abstract form;All authors certify that the work is original and does not contain excessive overlap with prior or contemporaneous publication elsewhere, and where the publication reports on cohorts, trials, or data that have been reported on before these other publications must be referenced;All original research work are approved by the relevant bodies such as institutional review boards or ethics committees;All conflicts of interest, financial or otherwise, that may affect the authors' ability to present data objectively, and relevant sources of funding have been duly declared in the manuscript;The manuscript in its published form will be maintained on the servers of JCSM Clinical Reports as a valid publication only as long as all statements in the guidelines on ethical publishing remain true; andIf any of the aforementioned statements ceases to be true, the authors have a duty to notify the Editors of JCSM Clinical Reports as soon as possible so that the available information regarding the published article can be updated and/or the manuscript can be withdrawn.

scholarly journals Historical Perspectives on Ethical and Regulatory Aspects of Human Participants Research: Implications for Oncology Clinical Trials in Africa

2020 ◽  
pp. 959-965 ◽  
Author(s):  
Bodour Salhia ◽  
Victoria Olaiya
Keyword(s):  
Clinical Trials ◽  
Communicable Disease ◽  
Ethics Committees ◽  
African Countries ◽  
Historical Perspectives ◽  
Oncology Clinical Trials ◽  
Human Participants ◽  
National Regulatory Agency ◽  
Care Problems ◽  
Medical Advances

Clinical trials research involving human participants has led to numerous medical advances. Historically, however, clinical trials research was the source of major concerns for the safety and welfare of the human participants taking part in these studies. The ethical principles of autonomy, beneficence, and justice came about in response to medical atrocities, and regulations were ultimately put in place to protect the rights and welfare of human participants and to maintain the public trust in the research enterprise. Today, clinical trials are one of the most heavily regulated practices in the world, and yet still not all people are provided the same oversights and protections, with improprieties disproportionately affecting poor-resource nations and vulnerable populations. As Africa approaches the post–communicable disease era, cancer is set to take the lead as the most burdensome disease, making the need for oncology clinical trials in Africa greater than ever before. Africa represents a heterogeneous market with 55 countries, most with their own National Regulatory Agency (NRA) and each with varying levels of regulatory maturity. This diversity creates a highly complex regulatory environment and causes challenges when bringing drugs to market. There is a large need for harmonization and increased collaboration between the African nations’ NRAs. In addition, many African countries need to be better equipped to handle research ethics committees and/or learn how to rely on neighboring countries with more established ethics committees. Well-run clinical trials offer solutions to national health care problems, and all people deserve equal access to their benefits.

scholarly journals The efficiency of single institutional review board review in National Institute of Child Health and Human Development Cooperative Reproductive Medicine Network–initiated clinical trials

2018 ◽  
Vol 16 (1) ◽  
pp. 3-10 ◽  
Author(s):  
Michael P Diamond ◽  
Esther Eisenberg ◽  
Hao Huang ◽  
Christos Coutifaris ◽  
Richard S Legro ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Clinical Trials ◽  
Child Health ◽  
Clinical Research ◽  
Human Development ◽  
Reproductive Medicine ◽  
Institutional Review Board ◽  
Institutional Review Boards ◽  
Institutional Review ◽  
The Impact ◽  
Review Boards

Background/aims: Timely review of research protocols by institutional review boards leads to more rapid initiation of clinical trials, which is critical to expeditious translation from bench to bedside. This observational study examined the impact of a single institutional review board on time and efforts required to initiate clinical trials by the National Institute of Child Health and Human Development Cooperative Reproductive Medicine Network. Methods: Collection of data from the same six main clinical sites for three current clinical trials and two past clinical trials, including time from institutional review board submission to approval, pages submitted, consent form length, number of required attachments, other regulatory requirements, order of review at central or local sites, and language in documents at individual participating sites. Results from two past clinical trials were also included. Results: While time required for actual institutional review board submission’s review and initial approval was reduced with use of a single institutional review board for multicenter trials (from a mean of 66.7–24.0 days), total time was increased (to a mean of 111.2 or 123.3 days). In addition to single institutional review board approval, all institutions required local approval of some components (commonly consent language and use of local language), which varied considerably. The single institutional review board relied on local institutions for adding or removing personnel, conflict of interest review, and auditing of activities. Conclusion: A single institutional review board reduced time for initial review and approval of protocols and informed consents, although time for the entire process was increased, as individual institutions retained oversight of components of required regulatory review. In order to best achieve the National Institute of Health’s goals for improved efficiency in initiation and conduct of multisite clinical research, greater coordination with local institutional review boards is key to streamlining and accelerating initiation of multisite clinical research.

scholarly journals Negotiating Responsibility for Navigating Ethical Issues in Qualitative Research: A Review of Miller, Birch, Mauthner, and Jessop’s (2012) Ethics in Qualitative Research, Second Edition

2015 ◽  
Author(s):  
Michelle McCarron
Keyword(s):  
Qualitative Research ◽  
Research Ethics ◽  
Ethical Issues ◽  
Ethics Committees ◽  
Institutional Review Boards ◽  
Research Ethics Committees ◽  
The United Kingdom ◽  
Institutional Review ◽  
Technological Advances ◽  
Research Ethics Boards

Ethics in Qualitative Research (Miller, Birch Mauthner, & Jessop, 2012), now in its second edition, uses a feminist framework to present a variety of issues pertinent to qualitative researchers. Topics include traditional challenges for qualitative researchers (e.g., access to potential participants, informed consent, overlapping roles), as well as those that have garnered more attention in recent years, particularly with regard to uses and consequences of technological advances in research. The book is critical of committees whose function it is to review proposed research and grant research ethics approval (e.g., University Research Ethics Committees [URECs], Research Ethics Boards [REBs], and Institutional Review Boards [IRBs]). The authors of this book are situated within the United Kingdom. The editors take the position that ethics oversight by the researchers themselves is preferable and that such boards and committees are not well equipped to review qualitative research. A rebuttal to this position is presented within this review. Ethics in Qualitative Research provides a good overview of ethical issues that researchers face and is effective in merging theory with practice. It would be strengthened by avoiding the debate over URECs or by offering concrete suggestions for how URECs can improve their reviews of qualitative research.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document