A case study evaluation of ethics review systems for multicentre clinical trials

Fitzpatrick, Kate L; Boult, Margaret; Fitridge, Robert A

doi:10.5694/j.1326-5377.2010.tb03515.x

Topics

To the Editor: Hicks and colleagues presented a study contrasting the ethics review system in two multicentre trials.1 They concluded that the introduction of a centralised ethics review process in New South Wales did not reduce the overall time taken to receive approval, but did help to reduce the time and resources involved in preparing applications.

Discipline of Surgery, University of Adelaide, Queen Elizabeth Hospital, Adelaide, SA.

Correspondence: kate.fitzpatrick@adelaide.edu.au

1. Hicks SC, James RE, Wong N, et al. A case study evaluation of ethics review systems for multicentre clinical trials. Med J Aust 2009; 191: 280-282. <eMJA full text> <MJA full text>
2. Barnes M, Boult M, Maddern G, Fitridge R. A model to predict outcomes for endovascular aneurysm repair using preoperative variables. Eur J Vasc Endovasc Surg 2008; 35: 571-579.
3. National Health and Medical Research Council. NEAF — National Ethics Application Form. http://www.nhmrc.gov.au/health_ethics/ahec/neaf/index.htm (accessed Sep 2009).
4. Whiteman DC, Webb PM, Purdie DM, et al. National ethics committee urgently needed. Med J Aust 2003; 178: 187. <MJA full text>
5. National Health and Medical Research Council. Harmonisation of Multi-centre Ethical Review (HoMER). http://www.nhmrc.gov.au/health_ethics/homer/index.htm (accessed Dec 2009).

Online responses are no longer available. Please refer to our instructions for authors page for more information.