The new system of review by multicentre research ethics committees: prospective study. Issue 7243 (29th April 2000)

• Record Type: Journal Article
• Authors: Tully, Joanna; Ninis, Nelly; Booy, Robert; Viner, Russell
• Is Part Of: BMJ. Volume 320:Issue 7243(2000)
• Page Start: 1179
• Page End: 1182
• Publication Date: 2000-04-29
• Subjects: Medicine -- Periodicals; Medicine -- Periodicals; Medicine; Periodicals; 610
• DOI: 10.1136/bmj.320.7243.1179
• Languages: English
• ISSNs: 0007-1447

Abstract

Abstract: Objective: To assess the function of the new system of review by multicentre research ethics committees and to highlight areas where improvement is still needed. Design: Prospectively collected data from a multicentre study was examined with respect to the ethics review process. Administrative, financial, and time elements of the review process were audited. Setting: A single multicentre research ethics committee and 125 local ethics committees from six regions of England. Main outcome measures: Time to reply, time to approval, and number of non-local changes to the application requested. Results: Only 40% of local ethics committees considered our study in the manner specified in the 1998 directive. Less than a third of committees replied within the 21 day period stipulated, although committees acting by executive subcommittee replied more quickly than those not acting by executive subcommittee. There was a tendency for executive subcommittees to approve studies in a shorter time. Local ethics committees asked for a large number of non-local changes to the application. The financial cost of applying to multiple ethics committees remains high, mainly because multiple copies of research applications are being requested. Conclusions: The new system of approval by multicentre research ethics committee for multicentre studies was introduced to reduce administrative costs, speed up the process of reviews by multiple research ethics committees, and standardise the conclusions of the local research ethics committees. Since its introduction an improvement has been seen, but the system is not yet universally functioning as intended. Ethics review still remains a hindrance to the financial resources and commencement of national studies. We strongly support the structure of review by multicentre research ethics committees but suggest that the system has yet to achieve its aims.