阿根廷布宜诺斯艾利斯多中心方案伦理审查的可变性。观察性研究。

Javier Mariani, María Laura Garau, Adriel Jonas Roitman, Claudia Vukotich, Leonardo Perelis, Fernando Ferrero, Adriana Gladys Domínguez, Cecilia Campos, Cecilia Serrano, Gabriel González Villa Monte
{"title":"阿根廷布宜诺斯艾利斯多中心方案伦理审查的可变性。观察性研究。","authors":"Javier Mariani,&nbsp;María Laura Garau,&nbsp;Adriel Jonas Roitman,&nbsp;Claudia Vukotich,&nbsp;Leonardo Perelis,&nbsp;Fernando Ferrero,&nbsp;Adriana Gladys Domínguez,&nbsp;Cecilia Campos,&nbsp;Cecilia Serrano,&nbsp;Gabriel González Villa Monte","doi":"10.1177/15562646221134620","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>It has been reported that significant variability in the ethics review process affects multisite studies. We analyzed 1,305 applications for multicenter studies (409 unique protocols), from 1<sup>st</sup> January 2020 to 20<sup>th</sup> September 2021. We examined the variability in the times to approval and the first observation and the variation in the level of risk assigned. The median [IQR] variabilities were 42.19 [15.23-82.36] days and 8.00 [3.12-16.68] days, for the times to approval and to the first observation, respectively. There was disagreement in the level of risk assigned by the Research Ethics Committee (REC) in 24.0% of cases. Independent predictors of variability included the number of REC members. In our study, we found substantial variability in the ethics review process among health research protocols. Also, we describe methods to readily measure the delays and the variations in the ethics review process.</p>","PeriodicalId":50211,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Empirical Research on Human Research Ethics","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.7000,"publicationDate":"2023-02-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Variability in Ethics Review for Multicenter Protocols in Buenos Aires, Argentina. 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,&nbsp;Cecilia Campos,&nbsp;Cecilia Serrano,&nbsp;Gabriel González Villa Monte\",\"doi\":\"10.1177/15562646221134620\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><p>It has been reported that significant variability in the ethics review process affects multisite studies. We analyzed 1,305 applications for multicenter studies (409 unique protocols), from 1<sup>st</sup> January 2020 to 20<sup>th</sup> September 2021. We examined the variability in the times to approval and the first observation and the variation in the level of risk assigned. The median [IQR] variabilities were 42.19 [15.23-82.36] days and 8.00 [3.12-16.68] days, for the times to approval and to the first observation, respectively. There was disagreement in the level of risk assigned by the Research Ethics Committee (REC) in 24.0% of cases. Independent predictors of variability included the number of REC members. In our study, we found substantial variability in the ethics review process among health research protocols. Also, we describe methods to readily measure the delays and the variations in the ethics review process.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":50211,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Journal of Empirical Research on Human Research Ethics\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.7000,\"publicationDate\":\"2023-02-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Journal of Empirical Research on Human Research Ethics\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"98\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1177/15562646221134620\",\"RegionNum\":4,\"RegionCategory\":\"哲学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"ETHICS\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Empirical Research on Human Research Ethics","FirstCategoryId":"98","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/15562646221134620","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"哲学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"ETHICS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

据报道,伦理审查过程中的显著差异会影响多地点研究。从2020年1月1日至2021年9月20日,我们分析了1305份多中心研究申请(409个独特方案)。我们检查了批准时间的可变性第一次观察和分配的风险水平的变化。批准时间和首次观察时间的中位[IQR]变异率分别为42.19[15.23-82.36]天和8.00[3.12-16.68]天。在研究伦理委员会(REC)分配的风险水平中,有24.0%的病例存在分歧。变异的独立预测因子包括REC成员的数量。在我们的研究中,我们发现在卫生研究方案的伦理审查过程中存在很大的差异。此外,我们还描述了在伦理审查过程中容易测量延迟和变化的方法。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
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
Variability in Ethics Review for Multicenter Protocols in Buenos Aires, Argentina. An Observational Study.

It has been reported that significant variability in the ethics review process affects multisite studies. We analyzed 1,305 applications for multicenter studies (409 unique protocols), from 1st January 2020 to 20th September 2021. We examined the variability in the times to approval and the first observation and the variation in the level of risk assigned. The median [IQR] variabilities were 42.19 [15.23-82.36] days and 8.00 [3.12-16.68] days, for the times to approval and to the first observation, respectively. There was disagreement in the level of risk assigned by the Research Ethics Committee (REC) in 24.0% of cases. Independent predictors of variability included the number of REC members. In our study, we found substantial variability in the ethics review process among health research protocols. Also, we describe methods to readily measure the delays and the variations in the ethics review process.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
3.50
自引率
7.70%
发文量
30
审稿时长
>12 weeks
期刊介绍: The Journal of Empirical Research on Human Research Ethics (JERHRE) is the only journal in the field of human research ethics dedicated exclusively to empirical research. Empirical knowledge translates ethical principles into procedures appropriate to specific cultures, contexts, and research topics. The journal''s distinguished editorial and advisory board brings a range of expertise and international perspective to provide high-quality double-blind peer-reviewed original articles.
期刊最新文献
Comparison of Instructions to Authors and Reporting of Ethics Components in Selected African Biomedical Journals: 2008 and 2017. How Making Consent Procedures More Interactive can Improve Informed Consent: An Experimental Study and Replication. An Example of a Clinical Research Ethics Committee in Türkiye: Types of Studies Analysed, Their Phases and Investigators. Decision-Making Capabilities of Artificial Intelligence Platforms as Institutional Review Board Members: Comment. Perceptions of the Research Integrity Climate in Egyptian Universities: A Survey Among Academic Researchers.
×
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