[Time of ethics review of research proposals: results of an observational study].

IF 0.3 Q4 ETHICS Cuadernos de Bioetica Pub Date : 2023-01-01 DOI:10.30444/CB.143
Javier Mariani, María Laura Garau, Adriel Jonas Roitman, Claudia Vukotich, Leonardo Perelis, Fernando Ferrero, Adriana Gladys Domínguez Msc, Cecilia Campos, Cecilia Serrano, Gabriel González Villa Monte
{"title":"[Time of ethics review of research proposals: results of an observational study].","authors":"Javier Mariani,&nbsp;María Laura Garau,&nbsp;Adriel Jonas Roitman,&nbsp;Claudia Vukotich,&nbsp;Leonardo Perelis,&nbsp;Fernando Ferrero,&nbsp;Adriana Gladys Domínguez Msc,&nbsp;Cecilia Campos,&nbsp;Cecilia Serrano,&nbsp;Gabriel González Villa Monte","doi":"10.30444/CB.143","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>The review of research protocols by Research Ethics Committees (RECs), essential to ensure the protection of participants, has been managed in the City of Buenos Aires through the PRIISA.BA electronic platform since January 2020. The aim of the present study was to describe ethical review times, their temporal evolution, and predictors of their duration. We conducted an observational study that included all the protocols reviewed between January 2020 and September 2021. Times to approval and to first observation were calculated. Temporal trends in times, and the multivariate association between these and protocol and IRB characteristics were evaluated. 2,781 protocols reviewed in 62 RECs were included. The median time to approval was 29.11 (RIQ 11.29 to 63.35) days, and time to first observation was 8.92 (RIQ 2.05 to 18.18) days. The times were significantly reduced throughout the study period. We detected as variables independently associated with shorter time to approval to be a COVID proposal, having funding and the number of centers to perform the study and having been reviewed by an RECs with more than 10 members. Making observations to the protocol was associated with more time. The results of the present work suggest that ethical review times were reduced during study period. In addition, variables associated with time were identified that could be the object of interventions to improve the process.</p>","PeriodicalId":42510,"journal":{"name":"Cuadernos de Bioetica","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.3000,"publicationDate":"2023-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Cuadernos de Bioetica","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.30444/CB.143","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"ETHICS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

The review of research protocols by Research Ethics Committees (RECs), essential to ensure the protection of participants, has been managed in the City of Buenos Aires through the PRIISA.BA electronic platform since January 2020. The aim of the present study was to describe ethical review times, their temporal evolution, and predictors of their duration. We conducted an observational study that included all the protocols reviewed between January 2020 and September 2021. Times to approval and to first observation were calculated. Temporal trends in times, and the multivariate association between these and protocol and IRB characteristics were evaluated. 2,781 protocols reviewed in 62 RECs were included. The median time to approval was 29.11 (RIQ 11.29 to 63.35) days, and time to first observation was 8.92 (RIQ 2.05 to 18.18) days. The times were significantly reduced throughout the study period. We detected as variables independently associated with shorter time to approval to be a COVID proposal, having funding and the number of centers to perform the study and having been reviewed by an RECs with more than 10 members. Making observations to the protocol was associated with more time. The results of the present work suggest that ethical review times were reduced during study period. In addition, variables associated with time were identified that could be the object of interventions to improve the process.

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
[研究建议的伦理审查时间:观察性研究的结果]。
研究伦理委员会(rec)对研究方案的审查,对于确保参与者的保护至关重要,已在布宜诺斯艾利斯市通过PRIISA进行管理。BA电子平台自2020年1月起。本研究的目的是描述伦理审查的时间,他们的时间演变,并预测其持续时间。我们进行了一项观察性研究,纳入了2020年1月至2021年9月期间审查的所有方案。计算了批准和首次观察的时间。时间的时间趋势,以及这些与方案和IRB特征之间的多变量关联进行了评估。纳入了62个RECs审查的2,781个方案。中位批准时间为29.11 (RIQ为11.29 ~ 63.35)天,首次观察时间为8.92 (RIQ为2.05 ~ 18.18)天。在整个研究期间,时间显著减少。我们检测到与以下因素独立相关的变量:获得批准成为COVID提案的时间较短,拥有资金和开展研究的中心数量,以及由10名以上成员组成的RECs进行审查。对协议进行观察需要更多的时间。本研究结果表明,研究期间伦理审查次数减少。此外,还确定了与时间有关的变量,这些变量可以成为改进该过程的干预对象。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
0.70
自引率
20.00%
发文量
5
期刊介绍: La revista Cuadernos de Bioética, órgano oficial de la Asociación Española de Bioética y Ética Médica, publica cuatrimestralmente artículos y recensiones bibliográficas sobre todas las áreas de la bioética: fundamentación, ética de la investigación, bioética clínica, biojurídica, etc. Estos proceden de los aceptados en la revisión tutelada por los editores de la revista como de otros que por encargo el comité editorial solicite a sus autores. La edicion de la revista se financia con las aportaciones de los socios de AEBI.
期刊最新文献
[Bioethical issues of Covid-19 in Spain. A systematic review]. [Ethical and legal implications of digital mental health applications]. [Human reason versus arrogance technoscience and the replacement shadow. -Ethical evaluation and social control to regain power on the means and ends from the work of José Sanmartín]. [Response to: ″An egg is not a chicken and an embryo is not a child″]. [The proposal for a regulation on the recognition of parenthood: An attempt to recognize surrogacy in the European Union?]
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1