Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-dh8gc Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-10T21:03:15.643Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Ethics approval requirement for CJEM research publications: a step forward for Canadian emergency medicine

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  21 May 2015

Merril Pauls
Merril Pauls*
Affiliation:
Section of Emergency Medicine, University of Manitoba, Winnipeg, Man., the Winnipeg Regional Health Authority, Winnipeg, Man. and the Health Sciences Centre, Winnipeg, Man.
*
Department of Emergency Medicine, GF201-820 Sherbrook Street, Winnipeg MB R3A 1R9; [email protected]

Abstract

An abstract is not available for this content so a preview has been provided. As you have access to this content, a full PDF is available via the ‘Save PDF’ action button.
Image of the first page of this content. For PDF version, please use the ‘Save PDF’ preceeding this image.'

Keywords

research ethicsemergency medicine researchquality improvement
Type
Commentaries • Commentaires
Information
Canadian Journal of Emergency Medicine , Volume 9 , Issue 2 , March 2007 , pp. 118 - 120
Copyright
Copyright © Canadian Association of Emergency Physicians 2007

References

1.Shahan, JB, Kelen, GD. Research ethics. Emerg Med Clin North Am 2006;24:657–69.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
2.Gray, JD. The problem of consent in emergency medicine research. Can J Emerg Med 2001;3:213–8.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
3.Thompson, J. Ethical challenges of informed consent in prehospital research. Can J Emerg Med 2003;5:108–14.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
4.Nuremberg Code: Reprinted in Trials of War Criminals before the Nuernberg Military Tribunals under Control Council Law.Vol 2. No 10. Washington, (DC): US Government Printing Office; 1949: 181–2.Google Scholar
5.World Medical Association. World Medical Association Declaration of Helsinki: Ethical Principles for Medical Research Involving Human Subjects; Amended by the 41st WMA General Assembly, Hong Kong, September 1989. Reprinted in Law Med Health Care 1991;19(3–4): 264–5.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
6.The Belmont Report. Ethical Principles and Guidelines for the Protection of Human Subjects of Research [reprinted in Federal Register 1979;44:23192]. Washington (DC): US Government Printing Office; 1978. DHEW Publication No (OS) 78-0012.Google Scholar
7.Caplan, AL. Twenty years after. The legacy of the Tuskegee syphilis study. When evil intrudes. Hastings Cent Rep 1992;22:29–32.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
8.Cartwright, SR. Report of the Committee of Inquiry into Allegations Concerning the Treatment of Cervical Cancer Patients at National Women’s Hospital and into other Related Matters. Auckland (NZ): Government Printer; 1998.Google Scholar
9.Smith, L, Byers, JF. Gene therapy in the post-Gelsinger era. JONAS Healthc Law Ethics Regul 2002;4:104–10.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
10.Williams, BF, French, JK, White, HD. Is our method of obtaining consent appropriate for randomised controlled trails in acute myocardial infarction? N Z Med J 1997;110:298–9.Google Scholar
11.Kucia, AM, Horowitz, JD. Is informed consent to clinical trials an “upside selective” process in acute coronary syndromes? Am Heart J 2000;140:94–7.Google Scholar
12.Williams, BF, French, JK, White, HD. Informed Consent During the Clinical Emergency of Acute Myocardial Infarction (HERO-2 Consent Substudy): a prospective observational study. Lancet 2003;361:918–22.Google Scholar
13.Yuval, R, Halon, DA, Merdler, A, et al. Patient comprehension and reaction to participating in a double-blind randomized clinical trial (ISIS-4) in acute myocardial infarction. Arch Intern Med 2000;160:1142–6.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
14.Schats, R, Brilstra, EH, Rinkel, GJE, et al. Informed consent in trials for neurological emergencies: the example of subarachnoid haemorrhage. J Neurol Neurosurg Psychiatry 2003;74:988–91.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
15.Casarett, D, Karlawish, JHT, Sugarman, J. Determining when Quality improvement initiatives should be considered research — proposed criteria and potential implications. JAMA 2000;283:2275–80.Google Scholar
16.Bellin, E, Neveloff Dubler, N. The quality improvement-research divide and the need for external oversight. Am J Public Health 2001;91:1512–7.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
17.Reinhardt, AC, Ray, LN. Differentiating quality improvement from research. Appl Nurs Res 2003;16:2–8.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
18.Lo, B, Groman, M. Oversight of quality improvement-focusing on benefits and risks. Arch Intern Med 2003;163:1481–6.Google Scholar
19.Wagner, RM. Ethical review of research involving human subjects: when and why is IRB review necessary. Muscle Nerve 2003;28:27–39.Google Scholar