Table 6Miscellaneous Articles

Angell EL, Bryman A, Ashcroft RE, Dixon-Woods M. An analysis of decision letters by research ethics committees: the ethics/scientific quality boundary examined. Qual Saf Health Care 2008;17:131–6.131
Barrett R. Strategies for promoting the scientific integrity of nursing research in clinical settings. J Nurses Staff Dev 2010;26:200–5; quiz 260–7.121
Campbell EG, Weissman JS, Clarridge B, Yucel R, Causino N, Blumenthal D. Characteristics of medical school faculty members serving on institutional review boards: results of a national survey. Acad Med 2003;78:831–6.125
Coleman CH, Bouesseau MC. How do we know that research ethics committees are really working? The neglected role of outcomes assessment in research ethics review. BMC Med Ethics 2008;9:6.128
Dixon-Woods M, Angell E, Ashcroft RE, Bryman A. Written work: the social functions of Research Ethics Committee letters. Soc Sci Med 2007;65:792–802.132
Kodish E, Stocking C, Ratain MJ, Kohrman A, Siegler M. Ethical issues in phase I oncology research: a comparison of investigators and institutional review board chairpersons. J Clin Oncol 1992;10:1810–6.122
Macneil SD, Fernandez CV. Informing research participants of research results: analysis of Canadian university based research ethics board policies. J Med Ethics 2006;32:49–54.134
MacNeil SD, Fernandez CV. Attitudes of research ethics board chairs towards disclosure of research results to participants: results of a national survey. J Med Ethics 2007;33:549–53.133
Paasche-Orlow MK, Brancati FL. Assessment of medical school institutional review board policies regarding compensation of subjects for research-related injury. Am J Med 2005;118:175–80.123
Sacca L. The uncontrolled clinical trial: scientific, ethical, and practical reasons for being. Intern Emerg Med 2010;5:201–4.120
Schuppli CA, Fraser D. Factors influencing the effectiveness of research ethics committees. J Med Ethics 2007;33:294–301.129
Sirotin N, Wolf LE, Pollack LM, Catania JA, Dolcini MM, Lo B. IRBs and ethically challenging protocols: views of IRB chairs about useful resources. IRB 2010;32:10–9.119
Stevens T, Wilde D, Paz S, Ahmedzai SH, Rawson A, Wragg D. Palliative care research protocols: a special case for ethical review? Palliat Med 2003;17:482–90.124
Taylor PL. State payer mandates to cover care in US oncology trials: do science and ethics matter? J Natl Cancer Inst 2010;102:376–90.118
Weil C, Rooney L, McNeilly P, Cooper K, Borror K, Andreason P. OHRP compliance oversight letters: an update. IRB 2010;32:1–6.135
Wichman A, Kalyan DN, Abbott LJ, Wesley R, Sandler AL. Protecting human subjects in the NIH’s Intramural Research Program: a draft instrument to evaluate convened meetings of its IRBs. IRB 2006;28:7–10.130
Wolf LE, Croughan M, Lo B. The challenges of IRB review and human subjects protections in practice-based research. Med Care 2002;40:521–9.126
Wolf LE, Walden JF, Lo B. Human subjects issues and IRB review in practice-based research. Ann Fam Med 2005;3 Suppl 1:S30–7.127


Cover of Maintaining Research Integrity
Maintaining Research Integrity: A Systematic Review of the Role of the Institutional Review Board in Managing Conflict of Interest [Internet].
Shekelle PG, Ruelaz A, Miake-Lye IM, et al.
Washington (DC): Department of Veterans Affairs; 2012 May.

NCBI Bookshelf. A service of the National Library of Medicine, National Institutes of Health.