Jove
Visualize
Contact Us
JoVE
x logofacebook logolinkedin logoyoutube logo
ABOUT JoVE
OverviewLeadershipBlogJoVE Help Center
AUTHORS
Publishing ProcessEditorial BoardScope & PoliciesPeer ReviewFAQSubmit
LIBRARIANS
TestimonialsSubscriptionsAccessResourcesLibrary Advisory BoardFAQ
RESEARCH
JoVE JournalMethods CollectionsJoVE Encyclopedia of ExperimentsArchive
EDUCATION
JoVE CoreJoVE BusinessJoVE Science EducationJoVE Lab ManualFaculty Resource CenterFaculty Site
Terms & Conditions of Use
Privacy Policy
Policies

Related Experiment Videos

Differences between research ethics committees.

Sarah J L Edwards1, Tracey Stone, Teresa Swift

  • 1University College London/University of College London Hospitals, NHS Trust, Tottenham Court Road, London, UK. sarah.edwards1@uclh.org

International Journal of Technology Assessment in Health Care
|January 20, 2007
PubMed
Summary
This summary is machine-generated.

Related Concept Videos

You might also read

Related Articles

Articles linked to this work by shared authors, journal, and citation graph.

Sort by
Same author

"You don't want to have cancer while you're in prison": a qualitative study of supporting people with serious illness in prison.

International journal of prison health·2026
Same author

Malignant upper urinary tract obstruction resulting in hospital admission: a qualitative study of patient, carer and clinician experiences and information received.

BMJ open·2026
Same author

<i>"The system doesn't really cater for the trauma that Black people have experienced"</i> - Experiences of grief and bereavement in Black British and Black Caribbean heritage communities in England: A qualitative study.

Death studies·2025
Same author

Shifting to online and telephone bereavement support provision during the COVID-19 pandemic: A mixed methods study of bereavement service provider perspectives and lessons learnt for current practice.

Palliative medicine·2025
Same author

Trauma-Informed Principles in Practice: A Mixed-Method Study of Co-Producing Systems Change With People Who Have Experienced Multiple Disadvantage.

Health expectations : an international journal of public participation in health care and health policy·2025
Same author

Implementing trauma-informed practice across services to support people experiencing multiple disadvantage: a mixed method study.

BMC health services research·2025
Same journal

Measuring, Valuing, and Incorporating Patient and Caregiver Productivity Costs in Economic Evaluations: A Scoping Review and Environmental Scan.

International journal of technology assessment in health care·2026
Same journal

ASSESSING COST EFFECTIVENESS IN ONCOLOGY TREATMENT SEQUENCES: A REVIEW OF PATHWAY MODELLING METHODS FOR HEALTH TECHNOLOGY ASSESSMENT.

International journal of technology assessment in health care·2026
Same journal

Practice and challenges of HB-HTA in China: insights from hospital management and clinical perspectives.

International journal of technology assessment in health care·2026
Same journal

Policy Dialogue on Health Technology Assessment in Middle East and North Africa: Reporting from an HTAi initiative.

International journal of technology assessment in health care·2026
Same journal

What is new in the early health technology assessment's new definition?

International journal of technology assessment in health care·2026
Same journal

Incorporating climate impact in health care decisions: new criteria to be tested in the Netherlands.

International journal of technology assessment in health care·2026
See all related articles

Research Ethics Committees (RECs) and Institutional Review Boards (IRBs) show variations in ethical judgments across studies. While some discrepancies exist, local ethical considerations remain crucial for robust research review.

Area of Science:

  • Bioethics
  • Research Ethics
  • Regulatory Science

Background:

  • Research Ethics Committees (RECs) and Institutional Review Boards (IRBs) are crucial for ethical oversight in research.
  • Variations in ethical judgments between these committees can impact research protocols and researcher experiences.

Purpose of the Study:

  • To systematically examine and compare the ethical judgments made by different RECs or IRBs.
  • To identify discrepancies in ethical review processes across various geographical locations and institutional settings.

Main Methods:

  • Conducted a comprehensive literature review.
  • Included studies that directly compared ethical judgments from multiple RECs or IRBs reviewing identical or similar protocols.

Main Results:

Related Experiment Videos

  • Twenty-six articles reported discrepancies in ethical judgments across Europe, the UK, Spain, and the US.
  • Five studies documented instances where identical protocols received both approval and rejection from different committees.
  • Consistent differences were noted in required revisions concerning consent, risk/benefit assessment, compensation, and scientific validity.

Conclusions:

  • Reported discrepancies are often anecdotal, highlighting a need for deeper investigation into REC/IRB decision-making processes.
  • Harmonization efforts, such as single ethical opinions for multi-site research, may mask underlying issues.
  • Acknowledging and investigating sources of variation, while respecting local ethical contexts, is essential for improving ethical review consistency and quality.