Protecting the public from the adverse effects of confused research ethics

1. Glasziou P, Scott AM, Chalmers I, et al. Improving research ethics review and governance can improve human health. (under review).
Google Scholar2. Chalmers, I . Regulation of therapeutic research is compromising the interests of patients. Int J Pharmaceut Med 2007; 21: 395–404.
Google Scholar | Crossref3. Chalmers, I . Well informed uncertainties about the effects of treatments. BMJ 2004; 328: 475–476.
Google Scholar | Crossref | Medline4. General Medical Council. Good Medical Practice. London: GMC, 2006.
Google Scholar5. Roberts, I, Chaudhry, B, Chalmers, I. New GMC guidance takes a major, ethically flawed, backward step. BMJ 2013; 346: f3879–f3879.
Google Scholar | Crossref | Medline6. Roberts, I, Chaudhry, B, Chalmers, I. Importance of ‘acknowledging and reducing treatment uncertainty’ in appraisal and revalidation. BMJ 2014; 348: g2851–g2851.
Google Scholar | Crossref | Medline7. Al-Shahi Salman, R, Beller, E, Kagan, J, et al. Increasing value and reducing waste in biomedical research regulation and management. Lancet 2014; 383: 176–185.
Google Scholar | Crossref | Medline | ISI8. Hemminki, E . Actors involved in the regulation of clinical research: comparison of Finland to England, Canada, and the USA. Health Res Policy Syst 2015; 13: 20–20.
Google Scholar | Crossref | Medline9. Hemminki, E . Research ethics committees in the regulation of clinical research: comparison of Finland to England, Canada, and the United States. Health Res Policy Syst 2016; 14: 5–5.
Google Scholar | Crossref | Medline10. Hemminki, E, Virtanen, JI, Veerus, P. Varying ethics rules in clinical research and routine patient care – research ethics committee chairpersons' views in Finland. Health Res Policy Syst 2014; 12: 15–15.
Google Scholar | Crossref | Medline11. Scott, AM, Kolstoe, S, Ploem, MCC, et al. Exempting low-risk health and medical research from ethics reviews: comparing Australia, the United Kingdom, the United States and the Netherlands. Health Res Policy Syst 2020; 18: 11–11.
Google Scholar | Crossref | Medline12. Abbott, L, Grady, C. A systematic review of the empirical literature evaluating IRBs: what we know and what we still need to learn. J Empir Res Hum Res Ethics 2011; 6: 3–19.
Google Scholar | SAGE Journals | ISI13. Nicholls, SG, Hayes, TP, Brehaut, JC, et al. A scoping review of empirical research relating to quality and effectiveness of research ethics review. PLoS One 2015; 10: e0133639–e0133639.
Google Scholar | Crossref | Medline | ISI14. Glasziou P and Chalmers I. Ethics review roulette: what can we learn? BMJ 2004; 328: 121–122.
Google Scholar15. Klitzman, R, Appelbaum, PS, Murray, A, et al. When IRBs say no to participating in research about single IRBs. Ethics Hum Res 2020; 42: 36–40.
Google Scholar | Crossref | Medline16. Petrova, M, Barclay, S. Research approvals iceberg: how a ‘low-key’ study in England needed 89 professionals to approve it and how we can do better. BMC Med Ethics 2019; 20: 7–7.
Google Scholar | Crossref | Medline17. Smithells, RW . Iatrogenic hazards and their effects. Postgrad Med J 1975; 51 Suppl 2: suppl 15:39–52.
Google Scholar | Medline18. Lantos, J . Ethical issues. How can we distinguish clinical research from innovative therapy? Am J Pediatr Hematol Oncol 1994; 16: 72–75.
Google Scholar | Medline19. Pappworth MH. Human Guinea Pigs: Experimentation on Man. Abingdon on Thames: Routledge and Kegan Paul, 1967.
Google Scholar20. Pappworth, MH . “Human guinea pigs” – a history. BMJ 1990; 301: 1456–1460.
Google Scholar | Crossref | Medline21. Chalmers I and Lindley R. Double standards on informed consent to treatment. In: Doyal L, Tobias JS (eds) Informed Consent in Medical Research. London: BMJ Books, 2001: 266–275.
Google Scholar22. Chalmers, I, Silverman, WA. Professional and public double standards on clinical experimentation. Control Clin Trials 1987; 8: 388–391.
Google Scholar | Crossref | Medline23. Pappworth, MH . Medical ethical committees: a review of their functions. World Med 1978; 13: 19–78.
Google Scholar24. Chalmers I. Medical experimentation. World Med 5 April, 1978; p. 18.
Google Scholar25. Chalmers, I . Human guinea pigs. BMJ 1991; 302: 411–411.
Google Scholar | Crossref26. Chalmers, I, Smeeth, L, Goldacre, B. Personalised medicine using N-of-1 trials: overcoming barriers to delivery. Healthcare (Basel) 2019; 7: 134–134.
Google Scholar | Crossref27. Mirza R, Punja S, Vohra S, et al. The history and development of N of 1 trials. JLL Bulletin: Commentaries on the history of treatment evaluation. See www.jameslindlibraryorg/articles/history-development-n-1-trials/ (2017, last accessed 24 September 2021).
Google Scholar28. Scott AM, Chalmers I, Barnett A, et al. ‘The ethics approval took 20 months on a trial which was meant to help terminally ill cancer patients. In the end we had to send the funding back': a survey of views on human research ethics reviews. J Med Ethics 2021 2021/01/13. DOI: 10.1136/medethics-2020-106785.
Google Scholar29. van Staa, TP, Dyson, L, McCann, G, et al. The opportunities and challenges of pragmatic point-of-care randomised trials using routinely collected electronic records: evaluations of two exemplar trials. Health Technol Assess 2014; 18: 1–146.
Google Scholar | Crossref | Medline | ISI30. Savulescu, J, Chalmers, I, Blunt, J. Are research ethics committees behaving unethically? Some suggestions for improving performance and accountability. BMJ 1996; 313: 1390–1393.
Google Scholar | Crossref | Medline31. Chalmers, I, Glasziou, P. Avoidable waste in the production and reporting of research evidence. Lancet 2009; 374: 86–89.
Google Scholar | Crossref | Medline | ISI32. Evans I, Thornton H, Chalmers I, et al. Testing Treatments: Better Research for Better Healthcare. 2nd edn. London: Pinter & Martin, 2011.
Google Scholar33. Chalmers, I, Bracken, MB, Djulbegovic, B, et al. How to increase value and reduce waste when research priorities are set. Lancet 2014; 383: 156–165.
Google Scholar | Crossref | Medline | ISI34. Goldacre, B, DeVito, NJ, Heneghan, C, et al. Compliance with requirement to report results on the EU Clinical Trials Register: cohort study and web resource. BMJ 2018; 362: k3218–k3218.
Google Scholar | Crossref | Medline35. Clarke M. The ethical requirement for systematic reviews for randomized trials. In: Ashcroft RE, Dawson A, Draper H, et al. (eds) Principles of Health Care Ethics Chichester: Wiley, 2007: 697–701.
Google Scholar36. Ashcroft RE. The ethics and governance of medical research. In: Ashcroft RE, Dawson A, Draper H, et al. (eds) Principles of Health Care Ethics. Chichester: Wiley, 2007: 681–687.
Google Scholar37. Roberts, I, Prieto-Merino, D, Shakur, H, et al. Effect of consent rituals on mortality in emergency care research. Lancet 2011; 377: 1071–1072.
Google Scholar | Crossref | Medline | ISI38. Wilkinson D. Please Randomize Me – But Don’t Tell my Family that You Did. See http://blog.practicalethics.ox.ac.uk/2014/08/please-randomize-me-but-dont-tell-my-family-that-you-did/ (2021, accessed 21 August 2014).
Google Scholar39. Shah A and Coleman MP. Increasing incidence of childhood leukaemia: a controversy re-examined. Br J Cancer 2007; 97: 1009–1012.
Google Scholar40. Ashcroft, R . Giving medicine a fair trial. Trials should not second guess what patients want. BMJ 2000; 320: 1686–1686.
Google Scholar | Crossref | Medline41. Meyer, MN, Heck, PR, Holtzman, GS, et al. Objecting to experiments that compare two unobjectionable policies or treatments. Proc Natl Acad Sci 2019; 116: 10723–10728.
Google Scholar | Crossref | Medline42. Collins, R, Bowman, L, Landray, M, et al. The magic of randomization versus the myth of real-world evidence. N Engl J Med 2020; 382: 674–678.
Google Scholar | Crossref | Medline43. Ashcroft RE, Dawson A, Draper H, et al. Principles of Health Care Ethics. Chichester: Wiley, 2007.
Google Scholar44. Bolland, MJ, Avenell, A, Grey, A. Assessment of research waste part 1: an exemplar from examining study design, surrogate and clinical endpoints in studies of calcium intake and vitamin D supplementation. BMC Med Res Methodol 2018; 18: 103–103.
Google Scholar | Crossref | Medline45. Joseph, PD, Caldwell, PH, Barnes, EH, et al. Completeness of protocols for clinical trials in children submitted to ethics committees. J Paediatr Child Health 2019; 55: 291–298.
Google Scholar | Crossref | Medline46. Paludan-Müller, AS, Ogden, MC, Marquardsen, M, et al. Do protocols for new randomised trials take previous similar trials into account? Cohort study of contemporary trial protocols. BMJ Open 2019; 9: e026661–e026661.
Google Scholar | Crossref | Medline

留言 (0)

沒有登入
gif