SEARCH

SEARCH BY CITATION

References

  • 18th World Medical Association General Assembly (1964) Declaration of Helsinki; Ethical Principles for Medical Research Involving Human Subjects.
  • Abbott, L. and Grady, C. (2011) A systematic review of the empirical literature evaluating IRBs: what we know and what we still need to learn, Journal of Empirical Research on Human Research Ethics, 6, 1, 320.
  • Angell, E. and Dixon-Woods, M. (2009) Do research ethics committees identify process errors in applications for ethical approval? Journal of Medical Ethics, 35, 1302.
  • Angell, E., Sutton, A.J., Windridge, K. and Dixon-Woods, M. (2006) Consistency in decision making by research ethics committees: a controlled comparison, Journal of Medical Ethics, 32, 6624.
  • Boltanski, L. and Thévenot, L. (2000) The reality of moral expectations: a sociology of situated judgement, Philosophical Explorations, 3, 3, 208231.
  • Boltanski, L. and Thévenot, L. (2006) On Justification: Economies of Worth. Princeton: Princeton University Press.
  • Centrale Commissie Mensgebonden Onderzoek (2009) Toetsing en Toezicht in de Toekomst. Den Haag.
  • Centrale Commissie Mensgebonden Onderzoek (2010) Jaarverslag 2009; Onderzoek met Proefpersonen, 2005–2009. Den Haag.
  • Coleman, C.H. and Bouesseau, M.C. (2008) How do we know that research ethics committees are really working? The neglected role of outcomes assessment in research ethics review, BMC Medical Ethics, 9, 6.
  • De Jong, J.P., Ter Riet, R.G. and Willems, D.L. (2010) Two prognostic indicators of the publication rate of clinical studies were available during ethical review, Journal of Clinical Epidemiology, 63, 12, 134250.
  • Department of Health and Human Services (1998) Institutional Review Boards: A Time for Reform. Washington: DHHS.
  • Dixon-Woods, M., Angell, E., Ashcroft, R.E. and Bryman, A. (2007) Written work: the social functions of Research Ethics Committee letters, Social Science & Medicine, 65, 4, 792802.
  • Dixon-Woods, M. and Angell, E.L. (2009) Research involving adults who lack capacity: how have research ethics committees interpreted the requirements? Journal of Medical Ethics, 35, 6, 37781.
  • Edwards, S.J., Stone, T. and Swift, T. (2007) Differences between research ethics committees, International Journal of Technology Assessment in Health Care, 23, 1, 1723.
  • Feldman, J.A. and Rebholz, C.M. (2009) Anonymous self-evaluation of performance by ethics board members: a pilot study, Journal of Empirical Research on Human Research Ethics, 4, 1, 639.
  • Fitzgerald, M.H., Phillips, P.A. and Yule, E. (2006) The research ethics review process and ethics review narratives, Ethics & Behavior, 16, 4, 37795.
  • Fost, N. and Levine, R.J. (2007) The dysregulation of human subjects research, Journal of the American Medical Association, 298, 18, 21968.
  • Grady, C. (2010) Do IRBs protect human research subjects? Journal of the American Medical Association, 304, 10, 11223.
  • Hedgecoe, A. (2008) Research ethics review and the sociological research relationship, Sociology, 42, 5, 87386.
  • Koski, G. (2003) Beyond compliance … is it too much to ask? Institutional Review Board, 25, 5, 56.
  • Moreira, T. (2005) Diversity in clinical guidelines: the role of repertoires of evaluation, Social Science & Medicine, 60, 9, 197585.
  • O’Reilly, M., Dixon-Woods, M., Angell, E., Ashcroft, R., et al. (2009) Doing accountability: a discourse analysis of research ethics committee letters, Sociology of Health and Illness, 31, 2, 24661.
  • Parker, D.B., James, M. and Barrett, R.J. (2005) The practical logic of reasonableness: an ethnographic reconnaissance of a research ethics committee, Monash Bioethics Review, 24, 1, 727.
  • Potter, J. and Wetherell, M. (1987) Discourse and Social Psychology: Beyond Attitudes and Behaviour. London: Sage.
  • Redshaw, M.E., Harris, A. and Baum, J.D. (1996) Research ethics committee audit: differences between committees, Journal of Medical Ethics, 22, 7882.
  • Saunders, J. (2002) Research ethics committees – time for change? Clinical Medicine, 2, 6, 5348.
  • Savulescu, J. (2002) Two deaths and two lessons: is it time to review the structure and function of research ethics committees? Journal of Medical Ethics, 28, 1, 12.
  • Shalala, D. (2000) Protecting research subjects – what must be done, New England Journal of Medicine, 343, 11, 80810.
  • Steinbrook, R. (2002) Improving protection for research subjects, New England Journal of Medicine, 346, 18, 142530.
  • Strauss, A. and Corbin, J. (1990) Basics of Qualitative Research: Grounded Theory Procedures and Techniques. Newbury Park: Sage.
  • Taylor, H.A. (2007) Moving beyond compliance: measuring ethical quality to enhance the oversight of human subjects research, Institutional Review Board, 29, 1, 914.