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

Are ethical committees reliable?

M Hotopf1, S Wessely, N Noah

  • 1Institute of Psychiatry, De Crespigny Park, London, UK.

Journal of the Royal Society of Medicine
|January 1, 1995
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

COVID-19-related sickness absence among 4,721 NHS staff in England and its relation with long COVID symptoms: findings from NHS CHECK.

BMC health services research·2025
Same author

The relationship between wearable-derived sleep features and relapse in Major Depressive Disorder.

Journal of affective disorders·2024
Same author

Sickness absence and associations with sociodemographic factors, health risk behaviours, occupational stressors and adverse mental health in 40,343 UK police employees.

Epidemiology and psychiatric sciences·2024
Same author

The association between persistent cognitive difficulties and depression and functional outcomes in people with major depressive disorder.

Psychological medicine·2023
Same author

The usability of daytime and night-time heart rate dynamics as digital biomarkers of depression severity.

Psychological medicine·2023
Same author

Patient preferences for key drivers and facilitators of adoption of mHealth technology to manage depression: A discrete choice experiment.

Journal of affective disorders·2023
Same journal

The Placebo Effect and Long History of the Habit of Belief. How a Medieval Image Reveals the Power of the Invisible.

Journal of the Royal Society of Medicine·2026
Same journal

For more events and to book online, please visit //www.rsm.ac.uk/events.

Journal of the Royal Society of Medicine·2026
Same journal

Who is responsible when AI kills?

Journal of the Royal Society of Medicine·2026
Same journal

Patient-centred care: is it enough?

Journal of the Royal Society of Medicine·2026
Same journal

Continuity of care beyond access: measuring resolution rather than contact.

Journal of the Royal Society of Medicine·2026
Same journal

Ethnic differences in specialty destinations in UK medicine: a repeated cross-sectional analysis of secondary data.

Journal of the Royal Society of Medicine·2026
See all related articles

Local Research Ethical Committees (LREC) show high variability in their review process. A study found inconsistent modification demands across six committees, indicating a lack of standardization in ethical research review.

Area of Science:

  • Medical Ethics
  • Research Governance

Background:

  • Local Research Ethical Committees (LRECs) play a crucial role in safeguarding research participants.
  • Assessing the consistency of LREC reviews is vital for reliable ethical oversight.

Purpose of the Study:

  • To evaluate the reliability and consistency of Local Research Ethical Committees (LRECs).
  • To identify variations in ethical review processes among different LRECs.

Main Methods:

  • A single, genuine research proposal was submitted to six different LRECs.
  • Key outcome measures included the number of modifications requested and inter-committee agreement on these changes.

Main Results:

  • All reviewed LRECs requested modifications to the research proposal.
Keywords:
Biomedical and Behavioral Research

Related Experiment Videos

  • No two committees requested the same set of changes, highlighting significant divergence.
  • The degree of agreement between committees on necessary modifications was notably low.

    • Conclusions:

    • Local Research Ethical Committees (LRECs) exhibit substantial variability in their review and decision-making processes.
    • The findings suggest a lack of standardization, potentially impacting the efficiency and uniformity of ethical research approval.