» Articles » PMID: 10390685

Performance of Research Ethics Committees in Spain. A Prospective Study of 100 Applications for Clinical Trial Protocols on Medicines

Overview
Journal J Med Ethics
Specialty Medical Ethics
Date 1999 Jul 3
PMID 10390685
Citations 9
Authors
Affiliations
Soon will be listed here.
Abstract

Objectives: To review the characteristics and performance of research ethics committees in Spain in the evaluation of multicentre clinical trial drug protocols.

Design: A prospective study of 100 applications.

Setting: Forty-one committees reviewing clinical trial protocols, involving 50 hospitals in 25 cities.

Main Measures: Protocol-related features, characteristics of research ethics committees and evaluation dynamics.

Results: The 100 applications involved 15 protocols (of which 12 were multinational) with 12 drugs. Committees met monthly (except one). They had a mean number of 12 members, requested a mean of six complete dossiers and nine additional copies of the protocol with a mean deadline of 14 days before the meeting. All applications were approved except three (two of the three were open-label long-term safety trials rejected by the same committee), which were approved by the other committees involved. The mean time from submission to approval was 64 days. The mean time from submission to arrival of the approval document at our offices was 85 days. Twenty-five committees raised queries for 38 of the 97 finally approved applications. Impact of evaluation fee, number of members, queries raised and experience of committees on timings were not statistically significant.

Conclusion: Obtaining ethical approval is time-consuming. There is much diversity in the research ethics committees' performance. A remarkable delay (> 20 days) exists between the decision and the arrival of the written approval, suggesting administrative or organisational problems.

Citing Articles

A Scoping Review of Empirical Research Relating to Quality and Effectiveness of Research Ethics Review.

Nicholls S, Hayes T, Brehaut J, McDonald M, Weijer C, Saginur R PLoS One. 2015; 10(7):e0133639.

PMID: 26225553 PMC: 4520456. DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0133639.


Reporting of Ethical Considerations Associated with Clinical Trials Published in Iranian Dental Journals between 2001 and 2011.

Navabi N, Shahravan A, Modaberi A Iran J Public Health. 2013; 42(6):594-601.

PMID: 23967427 PMC: 3744256.


An appraisal of the process of protocol review by an ethics review conmmittee in a tertiary institution in Ibadan.

Eyelade O, Ajuwon A, Adebamowo C Afr J Med Med Sci. 2011; 40(2):163-9.

PMID: 22195386 PMC: 3333792.


Centralized national ethical review of clinical trials in Croatia.

Vitezic D, Lovrek M, Tomic S Croat Med J. 2009; 50(2):111-6.

PMID: 19399943 PMC: 2681057. DOI: 10.3325/cmj.2009.50.111.


Innovations in the Ethical Review of Health-Related Quality Improvement and Research: The Alberta Research Ethics Community Consensus Initiative (ARECCI).

Hagen B, OBeirne M, Desai S, Stingl M, Pachnowski C, Hayward S Healthc Policy. 2009; 2(4):e164-77.

PMID: 19305726 PMC: 2585461.


References
1.
Ashford J . Recent experience of ethics committee review of a multicentre research project. Br J Clin Pharmacol. 1987; 23(3):373-4. PMC: 1386242. DOI: 10.1111/j.1365-2125.1987.tb03063.x. View

2.
Ahmed A, Nicholson K . Delays and diversity in the practice of local research ethics committees. J Med Ethics. 1996; 22(5):263-6. PMC: 1377056. DOI: 10.1136/jme.22.5.263. View

3.
Redshaw M, Harris A, Baum J . Research ethics committee audit: differences between committees. J Med Ethics. 1996; 22(2):78-82. PMC: 1376918. DOI: 10.1136/jme.22.2.78. View

4.
Crooks S, Colman S, Campbell I . Costs and getting ethical approval deter doctors from participating in multicentre trials. BMJ. 1996; 312(7047):1669. PMC: 2351387. DOI: 10.1136/bmj.312.7047.1669a. View

5.
Dudley H . Local research ethics committees. Attitude of their members is the critical factor. BMJ. 1995; 311(7019):1571. PMC: 2548188. DOI: 10.1136/bmj.311.7019.1571b. View