Evaluation of Research Ethics Committees: Criteria for the Ethical Quality of the Review Process

References

• Abbott, L., and C. Grady. 2011. A systematic review of the empirical literature evaluating IRBs: What we know and what we still need to learn. Journal of Empirical Research on Human Research Ethics 6 (1):3–19. doi:10.1525/jer.2011.6.1.3.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Accreditation Association for Human Research Protection Programs (AAHRPP). 2013. Evaluation Instrument for Accreditation. https://admin.share.aahrpp.org/Website%20Documents/Evaluation_Instrument_for_Accreditation.PDF ( accessed July 25, 2015).
   Google Scholar
• Accreditation Association for Human Research Protection Programs (AAHRPP). 2014. AAHRPP Accreditation Procedures. https://admin.share.aahrpp.org/Website%20Documents/AAHRPP%20Accreditation%20Procedures%20(12%2031%202014).pdf ( accessed July 25, 2015).
   Google Scholar
• Allison, R. D., L. J. Abbott, and A. Wichman. 2008. Roles and experiences of non-scientist institutional review board members at the national institutes of health. IRB 30 (5):8–13.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Anderson, E. 2006. A qualitative study of non-affiliated, non-scientist institutional review board members. Accountability in Research 13 (2):135–55. doi:10.1080/08989620600654027.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Anderson, E., and J. M. DuBois. 2012. IRB decision-making with imperfect knowledge: A framework for evidence-based research ethics review. The Journal of Law, Medicine & Ethics 40 (4):951–69. doi:10.1111/j.1748-720X.2012.00724.x.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ansmann, E. B., A. Hecht, D. K. Henn, S. Leptien, and H. G. Stelzer. 2013. The future of monitoring in clinical research - a holistic approach: Linking risk-based monitoring with quality management principles. German Medical Science 11 (Doc04). doi:10.3205/000172.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Bernabe, R. D., G. J. van Thiel, J. A. Raaijmakers, and J. J. van Delden. 2012. The risk-benefit task of research ethics committees: An evaluation of current approaches and the need to incorporate decision studies methods. BMC Medical Ethics 13:6. doi:10.1186/1472-6939-13-6.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bobbert, M. 2012. Ethics of clinical/randomized Trials. In Encyclopedia of Applied Ethics, ed. R. Chadwick, vol. 3, 2nd ed., 717–25. Amsterdam, The Netherlands: Elsevier.
   Google Scholar
• Bobbert, M., and M. H. Werner. 2014. Autonomie /Selbstbestimmung. Lenk, Duttge, and Fangerau 2014:105–14. doi:10.1007/978-3-642-35099-3_17.
   Google Scholar
• Brock, D. 2008. Philosophical justification of informed consent in research. Emanuel, Grady, Crouch, Lie, Miller, and Wendler 2008:606–12.
   Google Scholar
• Brockmöller, J., and D. Sehrt. 2014. Endpunkte in der Forschung am Menschen. Lenk, Duttge, and Fangerau 2014:583–89. doi:10.1007/978-3-642-35099-3_92.
   Google Scholar
• Candilis, P., C. W. Lidz, P. S. Appelbaum, R. M. Arnold, W. Gardner, S. Myers, A. J. Grudzinskas JR., and L. J. Simon. 2012. The Silent Majority: Who speaks at IRB meetings? IRB 34 (4):15–20.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Capron, A. M. 2008. Legal and regulatory standards of informed consent. Emanuel, Grady, Crouch, Lie, Miller, and Wendler 2008:613–32.
   Google Scholar
• Chalmers, I., and P. Glasziou. 2009. Avoidable waste in the production and reporting of research evidence. The Lancet 374 (9683):86–89. doi:10.1016/S0140-6736(09)60329-9.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Coleman, C. H., and M.-C. Bouësseau. 2008. How do we know that research ethics committees are really working? The neglected role of outcomes assessment in research ethics review. BMC Medical Ethics 9 (1):6. doi:10.1186/1472-6939-9-6.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Council for International Organizations of Medical Sciences (CIOMS). 2002. International Ethical Guidelines for Biomedical Research involving Human Subjects. http://www.cioms.ch/images/stories/CIOMS/guidelines/guidelines_nov_2002_blurb.htm ( accessed July 29, 2015).
   Google Scholar
• Council of Europe. 2005. Additional Protocol to the Convention on Human Rights and Biomedicine, concerning Biomedical Research. https://rm.coe.int/CoERMPublicCommonSearchServices/DisplayDCTMContent?documentId=090000168008371a ( accessed May 01, 2016).
   Google Scholar
• Council of Europe, Steering Committee on Bioethics. 2012. Guide for Research Ethics Committee Members. http://www.coe.int/t/dg3/healthbioethic/Activities/02_Biomedical_research_en/Guide/Guide_EN.pdf ( accessed November 23, 2015).
   Google Scholar
• Dekking, S. A., R. van der Graaf, A. Y. Schouten-van Meeteren, M. C. Kars, and J. J. van Delden. 2016. A qualitative study into dependent relationships and voluntary informed consent for research in pediatric oncology. Pediatric Drugs 18 (2):145–56. doi:10.1007/s40272-015-0158-9.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Division of Ethics of Science and Technology. 2005. Establishing Bioethics Committees: Guide 1. http://unesdoc.unesco.org/images/0013/001393/139309e.pdf ( accessed October 01, 2015).
   Google Scholar
• Division of Ethics of Science and Technology. 2006. Bioethics Committees at work: Procedures and Policies Guide 2. http://unesdoc.unesco.org/images/0014/001473/147392e.pdf ( accessed October 01, 2015).
   Google Scholar
• Doppelfeld, E. 2003. Medizinische Ethik-Kommissionen im Wandel. In Die Ethik-Kommissionen: Neuere Entwicklungen und Richtlinien, ed. U. Wiesing, 5–23. Medizin-Ethik 15. Köln, Germany: Deutscher Ärzte-Verlag.
   Google Scholar
• Dwan, K., C. Gamble, P. R. Williamson, and J. J. Kirkham. 2013. Systematic review of the empirical evidence of study publication bias and outcome reporting bias - an updated review. Plos ONE 8 (7):e66844. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0066844.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• EFGCP. 2008. Guidance for Auditing Quality Systems of Independent Ethics Committees in Europe (2008). http://www.efgcp.eu/Downloads/EFGCP%20IEC%20Audit%20Guidance%2014%20October2008.pdf ( accessed March 28, 2013).
   Google Scholar
• Emanuel, E. J., C. Grady, R. Crouch, R. K. Lie, F. G. Miller, and D. Wendler, eds. 2008. The Oxford textbook of clinical research ethics. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Emanuel, E. J., D. Wendler, and C. P. Grady. 2000. What makes clinical research ethical? Journal of the American Medical Association 283 (20):2701–11. doi:10.1001/jama.283.20.2701.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Fitzgerald, M. H., P. A. Phillips, and E. Yule. 2006. The research ethics review process and ethics review narratives. Ethics & Behavior 16 (4):377–95. doi:10.1207/s15327019eb1604_7.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Flory, J. H., D. Wendler, and E. J. Emanuel. 2008. Empirical issues on informed consent for research. Emanuel, Grady, Crouch, Lie, Miller, and Wendler 2008:645–60.
   Google Scholar
• Fost, N. 2007. The dysregulation of human subjects research. Journal of the American Medical Association 298 (18):2196–98. doi:10.1001/jama.298.18.2196.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Foster, C. 2001. The ethics of medical research on humans. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Grady, C. 2010. Do IRBs protect human research participants? Journal of the American Medical Association 304 (10):1122–23. doi:10.1001/jama.2010.1304.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Gunsalus, C. K., E. M. Bruner, N. C. Burbules, L. Dash, M. Finkin, J. P. Goldberg, W. T. Greenough, G. A. Miller, and M. G. Pratt. 2006. Mission creep in the IRB world. Science 312 (5779):1441. doi:10.2307/3846275.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Heinrichs, B. 2006. Forschung am Menschen: Elemente einer ethischen Theorie biomedizinischer Humanexperimente. Berlin, Germany: De Gruyter.
   Google Scholar
• Honnefelder, L. 1998. Zur ethischen Beurteilung von Forschung am Menschen unter besonderer Berücksichtigung der Forschung an einwilligungsunfähigen Personen. In Möglichkeiten, Risiken und Grenzen der Technik auf dem Weg in die Zukunft: Beiträge zur Technikfolgenabschätzung und Forschungsförderung aus Politik, Wirtschaft und Ethik, ed. M. Pins, 131–52. Forum humane Technikgestaltung Bd. 18. Bonn, Germany: Forschungsinst. der Friedrich-Ebert-Stiftung.
   Google Scholar
• Hoppe, N. 2011. Risky business: Re-evaluating participant risk in biobanking. In Human tissue research, eds. C. Lenk, N. Hoppe, K. Beier, and C. Wiesemann, 35–44. New York: Oxford University Press.
   Google Scholar
• International Conference on Harmonization of Technical Requirements for Registration of Pharmaceuticals for Human Use (ICH). 1996. Guidelines for Good Clinical Practice (ICH E6). http://ichgcp.net/pdf/ich-gcp-en.pdf ( accessed March 29, 2013).
   Google Scholar
• International Conference on Harmonization of Technical Requirements for Registration of Pharmaceuticals for Human Use (ICH). 2000. Choice of Control Group and Related Issues in Clinical Trials (ICH E10). http://www.ich.org/fileadmin/Public_Web_Site/ICH_Products/Guidelines/Efficacy/E10/Step4/E10_Guideline.pdf ( accessed November 24, 2015).
   Google Scholar
• Ioannidis, J. P. A., S. Greenland, M. A. Hlatky, M. J. Khoury, M. R. Macleod, D. Moher, K. F. Schulz, and R. Tibshirani. 2014. Increasing value and reducing waste in research design, conduct, and analysis. The Lancet 383:166–75. doi:10.1016/S0140-6736(13)62227-8.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kettner, M. 2002. Überlegungen zu einer integrierten Theorie von Ethik-Kommissionen und Ethik-Komitees. Jahrbuch für wissenschaft Und Ethik 7 (5):53–71.
   Google Scholar
• Kettner, M. 2005. Research ethics committees in Germany. In Research ethics committees, data protection and medical research in European Countries, eds. D. Beyleveld, D. Townend, and J. Wright, 69–80. Aldershot, UK: Ashgate.
   Google Scholar
• Klitzman, R. 2015. The ethics police? The struggle to make human research safe. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Koski, G. 2003. Beyond Compliance… Is it too much to ask? IRB 25 (5):5. doi:10.2307/3564597.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Kuyare, M. S., P. A. Marathe, S. S. Kuyare, and U. M. Thatte. 2015. Perceptions and experiences of community members serving on Institutional Review Boards: A questionnaire based study. HEC Forum 27 (1):61–77. doi:10.1007/s10730-014-9263-3.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Laine, C., R. Horton, C. D. DeAngelis, J. M. Drazen, F. A. Frizelle, F. Godlee, and C. Haug. 2007. Clinical trial registration: Looking back and moving ahead. The Lancet 369:1909–11. doi:10.1016/S0140-6736(07)60894-0.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lenk, C., G. Duttge, and H. Fangerau, eds. 2014. Handbuch Ethik und Recht der Forschung am Menschen. Berlin, Germany: Springer. doi:10.1007/978-3-642-35099-3.
   Google Scholar
• Lidz, C. W., L. J. Simon, A. V. Seligowski, S. Myers, W. Gardner, P. J. Candilis, R. Arnold, and P. S. Appelbaum. 2012. The participation of community members on medical institutional review boards. Journal of Empirical Research on Human Research Ethics 7 (1):1–8. doi:10.1525/jer.2012.7.1.1.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Mascalzoni, D., ed. 2015. Ethics, law and governance of biobanking: National, European and international approaches. The International Library of Ethics, Law and Technology 14. Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Springer Netherlands. doi:10.1007/978-94-017-9573-9.
   Google Scholar
• Meerpohl, J. J., L. K. Schell, D. Bassler, S. Gallus, J. Kleijnen, M. Kulig, and C. La Vecchia. 2015. Evidence-informed recommendations to reduce dissemination bias in clinical research: Conclusions from the OPEN (Overcome failure to Publish nEgative fiNdings) project based on an international consensus meeting. BMJ Open 5 (5):e006666. doi:10.1136/bmjopen-2014-006666.
   Google Scholar
• Moore, A., and A. Donnelly. 2015. The job of ‘ethics committees’. Journal of Medical Ethics, published online first. doi:10.1136/medethics-2015-102688.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• National Commission for the Protection of Human Subjects of Biomedical and Behavioral Research. 1978. The Belmont Report: Ethical Principles and Guideline for the Protection of Human Subjects of Research. https://archive.org/details/belmontreporteth00unit ( accessed April 07, 2016).
   Google Scholar
• Ocana, A., and I. F. Tannock. 2011. When are “positive” clinical trials in oncology truly positive? Journal of the National Cancer Institute 103 (1):16–20. doi:10.1093/jnci/djq463.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Porter, J. D., and G. Koski. 2008. Regulations for the protection of humans in research in the United States: The common rule. Emanuel, Grady, Crouch, Lie, Miller, and Wendler 2008:156–66.
   Google Scholar
• Raspe, H. H., A. Hüppe, D. Strech, and J. Taupitz, eds. 2012. Empfehlungen zur Begutachtung klinischer Studien durch Ethik-Kommissionen, 2nd ed. Medizin-Ethik 25. Köln, Germany: Deutscher Ärzte-Verlag.
   Google Scholar
• Rauch, G. 2016. Why statistic matters - the ethical impact of biometrical issues in clinical trials. In Ethics and oncology: New issues of therapy, care and research, eds. M. Bobbert, B. Herrmann, and W. U. Eckart. Freiburg im Breisgau, Germany: Karl Alber.
   Google Scholar
• Resnik, D. B. 2015. Some reflections on evaluating institutional review board effectiveness. Contemporary Clinical Trials 45 (Pt B):261–64. doi:10.1016/j.cct.2015.09.018.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Resnik, D. B. 2017. The role of intuition in risk/benefit decision-making in human subjects research. Accountability in Research 24 (1):1–29. doi:10.1080/08989621.2016.1198978.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Rhodes, R. 2016. The goodness of ethics in research ethics review. Journal of Medical Ethics, Published Online First. doi:10.1136/medethics-2016-103870.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Rid, A., E. J. Emanuel, and D. Wendler. 2010. Evaluating the risks of clinical research. Journal of the American Medical Association 304 (13):1472. doi:10.1001/jama.2010.1414.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Schott, G., H. Pachl, U. Limbach, U. Gundert-Remy, W.-D. Ludwig, and K. Lieb. 2010. The financing of drug trials by pharmaceutical companies and its consequences. Deutsches Aerzteblatt International 107 (16):279–85. doi:10.3238/arztebl.2010.0279.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Schrag, Z. M. 2015. Robert L. Klitzman. The Ethics Police? The struggle to make human research safe. Society 52 (5):503–06. doi:10.1007/s12115-015-9935-x.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Schuppli, C. A., and D. Fraser. 2007. Factors influencing the effectiveness of research ethics committees. Journal of Medical Ethics 33 (5):294–301. doi:10.1136/jme.2005.015057.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Sengupta, S., and B. Lo. 2003. The roles and experiences of nonaffiliated and nonscientist members of institutional review boards. Academic Medicine 78 (2):212–18. doi:10.1097/00001888-200302000-00019.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Silverman, H. 2011. Protecting vulnerable research subjects in critical care trials: Enhancing the informed consent process and recommendations for safeguards. Annals of Intensive Care 1 (1):1–7. doi:10.1186/2110-5820-1-8.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Silverman, H., H. Sleem, K. Moodley, N. Kumar, S. Naidoo, T. Subramanian, R. Jaafar, and M. Moni. 2015. Results of a self-assessment tool to assess the operational characteristics of research ethics committees in low- and middle-income countries. Journal of Medical Ethics 41 (4):332–37. doi:10.1136/medethics-2013-101587.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Stark, L. 2012. Morality and society: Behind closed doors: IRBs and the making of ethical research. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
   Google Scholar
• Taylor, H. A. 2007. Moving beyond compliance: Measuring ethical quality to enhance the oversight of human subjects research. IRB 29 (5):9–14.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Tsan, M., N. Yen, and R. Brooks. 2013. Using quality indicators to assess human research protection programs at the department of veterans affairs. IRB 35 (1):10–14.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Wendler, D., and F. G. Miller. 2008. Risk benefit analysis and the net risks test. Emanuel, Grady, Crouch, Lie, Miller, and Wendler 2008:503–12.
   Google Scholar
• Wenner, D. M. 2016. Barriers to effective deliberation in clinical research oversight. HEC Forum 28 (3):245–59. doi:10.1007/s10730-015-9298-0.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Wichman, A., D. N. Kalyan, L. Abbott, R. Wesley, and A. L. Sandler. 2006. Protecting human subjects in the NIH’s Intramural research program: A draft instrument to evaluate convened meetings of its IRBs. IRB 28 (3):7–10.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Wilholt, T. 2009. Bias and values in scientific research. Studies in History and Philosophy of Science Part A 40 (1):92–101. doi:10.1016/j.shpsa.2008.12.005.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Wölk, F. 2002. Zwischen ethischer Beratung und rechtlicher Kontrolle – Aufgaben- und Funktionswandel der Ethikkommissionen in der medizinischen Forschung am Menschen. Ethik in der Medizin 14 (4):252–69. doi:10.1007/s00481-002-0190-5.
   Google Scholar
• World Health Organization (WHO). 2002. Surveying and Evaluating ethical Review Practices: A Complimentary Guide to the Operational Guidelines for Ethics Committees That Review Biomedical Research. http://www.who.int/tdr/publications/documents/ethics2.pdf ( accessed April 09, 2015).
   Google Scholar
• World Health Organization (WHO). 2011. Standards and Operational Guidance for Ethics Review of Health-Related Research with Human Participants. http://apps.who.int/iris/bitstream/10665/44783/1/9789241502948_eng.pdf?ua=1&ua=1 ( accessed March 27, 2013).
   Google Scholar
• World Medical Association (WMA). 2013. Declaration of Helsinki: Ethical Principles for Medical Research Involving Human Subjects. http://www.wma.net/en/30publications/10policies/b3/index.html ( accessed March 27, 2013).
   Google Scholar