Skip Navigation

This Article
Right arrow Full Text Freely available
Right arrow FREE Full Text (PDF) Freely available
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in ISI Web of Science
Right arrow Similar articles in PubMed
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Add to My Personal Archive
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrow Search for citing articles in:
ISI Web of Science (11)
Right arrowRequest Permissions
Right arrow Disclaimer
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Maskell, N.A.
Right arrow Articles by Davies, R.J.O.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Maskell, N.A.
Right arrow Articles by Davies, R.J.O.
Social Bookmarking
Add to CiteULike   Add to Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us  
What's this?

Q J Med 2003; 96: 305-307
© 2003 Association of Physicians

Variations in experience in obtaining local ethical approval for participation in a multi-centre study

N.A. Maskell, E.L. Jones, R.J.O. Davies, and on behalf of the BTS/MRC MIST steering committee

From the Oxford Centre for Respiratory Medicine, Churchill Hospital, John Radcliffe NHS Trust, Oxford, UK

Received 6 December 2002 Accepted for publication 16 December 2002.

Background: The Department of Health recently issued guidance on how Local Research Ethics Committees (LRECs) should handle an Multi-centre Research Ethics Committee (MREC)-approved application. This process is intended as a rapid standardized approval process, facilitating the execution of clinical trials.

Aim: To evaluate if this guidance had led to an efficient process for obtaining local ethical approval.

Methods: Questionnaires were sent by post to Local Investigators of the 56 centres who had obtained LREC approval for the Multi-centre Intrapleural Streptokinase Trial.

Results: Replies were received from 51 centres (91%). A total of 25 296 pieces of paper and 62 h of photocopying time were required to meet the 51 LRECs' requirements. LREC meetings ranged from weekly to bimonthly, with only 24 (47%) having a ‘fast track’ system in place. Applications took a median of 27 (1–90) days from submission to first being considered, with local investigators spending 3.27 (0.5–15) h on each submission. Nineteen (37%) of the local investigators felt the LREC/MREC interface did not work well and 17 (33%) were at least partly deterred from participating in future trials.

Discussion: The guidelines do not seem to have been implemented by all LREC committees, leading to wide variation in local experience.

Address correspondence to Dr N.A. Maskell, Oxford Centre for Respiratory Medicine, Churchill Hospital, John Radcliffe NHS Trust, Headington, Oxford OX3 7LJ. e-mail: nickmaskell{at}doctors.org.uk


Add to CiteULike CiteULike   Add to Connotea Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us Del.icio.us    What's this?


This article has been cited by other articles:


Home page
 BMJHome page
A Smajdor, M R Sydes, L Gelling, and M Wilkinson
Applying for ethical approval for research in the United Kingdom
BMJ, October 16, 2009; 339(oct16_1): b4013 - b4013.
[Full Text]

Home page
 BMJHome page
A. A Schnitzbauer, P. E Lamby, I. Mutzbauer, C. Zuelke, H. J Schlitt, E. K Geissler, and for the SiLVER05 Study Group
Procedures for ethical review for clinical trials within the EU
BMJ, May 22, 2009; 338(may22_1): b1893 - b1893.
[Full Text]

Home page
 J. Med. EthicsHome page
E Angell and M Dixon-Woods
Do research ethics committees identify process errors in applications for ethical approval?
J. Med. Ethics, February 1, 2009; 35(2): 130 - 132.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

Home page
 J. Med. EthicsHome page
D L H Hunter
The ESRC research ethics framework and research ethics review at UK universities: rebuilding the Tower of Babel REC by REC
J. Med. Ethics, November 1, 2008; 34(11): 815 - 820.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

Home page
 J. Med. EthicsHome page
L Elliott and D Hunter
The experiences of ethics committee members: contradictions between individuals and committees
J. Med. Ethics, June 1, 2008; 34(6): 489 - 494.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

Home page
 BMJHome page
P. Glasziou and I. Chalmers
Ethics review roulette: what can we learn?
BMJ, January 17, 2004; 328(7432): 121 - 122.
[Full Text] [PDF]

Home page
 QJMHome page
C. Martyn
The ethical bureaucracy
QJM, May 1, 2003; 96(5): 323 - 324.
[Full Text] [PDF]


Disclaimer: Please note that abstracts for content published before 1996 were created through digital scanning and may therefore not exactly replicate the text of the original print issues. All efforts have been made to ensure accuracy, but the Publisher will not be held responsible for any remaining inaccuracies. If you require any further clarification, please contact our Customer Services Department.