[法国IRB研究:伦理委员会的研究资格]。

IF 2.2 4区 医学 Q3 PHARMACOLOGY & PHARMACY
Charles-Hervé Vacheron, Arnaud Friggeri, Maxime Lambert, Laura Shoonjans, Philippe Amiel
{"title":"[法国IRB研究:伦理委员会的研究资格]。","authors":"Charles-Hervé Vacheron, Arnaud Friggeri, Maxime Lambert, Laura Shoonjans, Philippe Amiel","doi":"10.1016/j.therap.2025.05.002","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Objectives: </strong>In France, the \"Research investigations involving human subjects\" (RIPH), defined in the Public Health Code, are reviewed by \"committees for the protection of persons\" (CPP) established by law. Other research studies in health are evaluated conducted by \"research ethics committees\" (CER) that can be established by research institutions (institutes, hospitals, universities, etc.) without a defined legal framework. The qualification of the research as RIPH or \"non-RIPH\" (RNIPH) determines the evaluation pathway - mandatory legal or extra-legal. Our objective was to describe the performance of CERs and CPPs in qualifying research projects as RIPH or RNIPH, the qualification standard used being the \"Guide to the qualification of health research\", an Inserm reference published in 2021.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Since the list of CPPs was already known, universities, university hospitals, and learned societies in medical specialties were contacted to find out if they housed a CER. Between 29/01/2024 and 29/02/2024, all documented CPPs and CERs were asked to participate in the study. If accepted, an email was sent to members with an online questionnaire proposing four cases to be qualified, either RIPH or non-RIPH. The cases were taken from the examples provided by the Inserm guide, which also served as a reference for assessing the responses. The analysis of the responses was carried out individually and at the level of each participating committee.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Thirty-five (35) centers, out of the 110 contacted, participated, producing 175 individual responses collected. The number of members per committee was 18 [12-23]. The response rate per committee was 27% [14-47]. Regarding the members' responses, the qualification was consistent with that of the Inserm guide in 79% (138), 62% (108), 66% (116), and 61% (106) of cases. At the committee level, a wide disparity between the different centers was documented, without notable differences between CER and CPP.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>A significant heterogeneity in the qualification of research was noted between the different committees, unrelated to the type of structure (CER or CPP). Information and training systems, aimed at all types of committees, should be encouraged to standardize the research qualification step.</p>","PeriodicalId":23147,"journal":{"name":"Therapie","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":2.2000,"publicationDate":"2025-05-19","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"[The French IRB Study: Qualification of research by ethics committees].\",\"authors\":\"Charles-Hervé Vacheron, Arnaud Friggeri, Maxime Lambert, Laura Shoonjans, Philippe Amiel\",\"doi\":\"10.1016/j.therap.2025.05.002\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Objectives: </strong>In France, the \\\"Research investigations involving human subjects\\\" (RIPH), defined in the Public Health Code, are reviewed by \\\"committees for the protection of persons\\\" (CPP) established by law. Other research studies in health are evaluated conducted by \\\"research ethics committees\\\" (CER) that can be established by research institutions (institutes, hospitals, universities, etc.) without a defined legal framework. The qualification of the research as RIPH or \\\"non-RIPH\\\" (RNIPH) determines the evaluation pathway - mandatory legal or extra-legal. Our objective was to describe the performance of CERs and CPPs in qualifying research projects as RIPH or RNIPH, the qualification standard used being the \\\"Guide to the qualification of health research\\\", an Inserm reference published in 2021.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Since the list of CPPs was already known, universities, university hospitals, and learned societies in medical specialties were contacted to find out if they housed a CER. Between 29/01/2024 and 29/02/2024, all documented CPPs and CERs were asked to participate in the study. If accepted, an email was sent to members with an online questionnaire proposing four cases to be qualified, either RIPH or non-RIPH. The cases were taken from the examples provided by the Inserm guide, which also served as a reference for assessing the responses. The analysis of the responses was carried out individually and at the level of each participating committee.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Thirty-five (35) centers, out of the 110 contacted, participated, producing 175 individual responses collected. The number of members per committee was 18 [12-23]. The response rate per committee was 27% [14-47]. Regarding the members' responses, the qualification was consistent with that of the Inserm guide in 79% (138), 62% (108), 66% (116), and 61% (106) of cases. At the committee level, a wide disparity between the different centers was documented, without notable differences between CER and CPP.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>A significant heterogeneity in the qualification of research was noted between the different committees, unrelated to the type of structure (CER or CPP). Information and training systems, aimed at all types of committees, should be encouraged to standardize the research qualification step.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":23147,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Therapie\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":2.2000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-05-19\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Therapie\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1016/j.therap.2025.05.002\",\"RegionNum\":4,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q3\",\"JCRName\":\"PHARMACOLOGY & PHARMACY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Therapie","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1016/j.therap.2025.05.002","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"PHARMACOLOGY & PHARMACY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

目标:在法国,《公共卫生法》界定的“涉及人体受试者的研究调查” (RIPH)由依法设立的“人身保护委员会”进行审查。其他卫生研究由“研究伦理委员会”(CER)进行评估,该委员会可由研究机构(研究所、医院、大学等)设立,没有明确的法律框架。研究是否具有RIPH或“非RIPH”(RNIPH)的资格决定了评估途径-强制性法律或非法律途径。我们的目标是描述cer和CPPs在合格研究项目中作为RIPH或RNIPH的表现,所使用的资格标准是“卫生研究资格指南”,这是Inserm于2021年发布的参考资料。方法:由于已知cps名单,联系大学、大学医院和医学专业学会,了解他们是否设有CER。在2024年1月29日至2024年2月29日期间,所有有记录的CPPs和cer都被要求参与研究。如果被接受,会员将收到一封电子邮件,其中包含一份在线调查问卷,建议四个案例获得资格,无论是RIPH还是非RIPH。这些案例取自Inserm指南提供的示例,该指南也可作为评估响应的参考。对答复的分析是在每个参与委员会一级单独进行的。结果:在联系的110个中心中,35个中心参与了调查,收集了175份个人回复。每个委员会的成员人数为18人[12-23]。每个委员会的回应率为27%[14-47]。在成员的回答中,79%(138)、62%(108)、66%(116)和61%(106)的病例与Inserm指南的资格一致。在委员会层面,不同中心之间的差异很大,而CER和CPP之间没有显著差异。结论:不同委员会之间的研究资格存在显著的异质性,与结构类型(CER或CPP)无关。应鼓励针对各类委员会的信息和培训系统使研究资格步骤标准化。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
[The French IRB Study: Qualification of research by ethics committees].

Objectives: In France, the "Research investigations involving human subjects" (RIPH), defined in the Public Health Code, are reviewed by "committees for the protection of persons" (CPP) established by law. Other research studies in health are evaluated conducted by "research ethics committees" (CER) that can be established by research institutions (institutes, hospitals, universities, etc.) without a defined legal framework. The qualification of the research as RIPH or "non-RIPH" (RNIPH) determines the evaluation pathway - mandatory legal or extra-legal. Our objective was to describe the performance of CERs and CPPs in qualifying research projects as RIPH or RNIPH, the qualification standard used being the "Guide to the qualification of health research", an Inserm reference published in 2021.

Methods: Since the list of CPPs was already known, universities, university hospitals, and learned societies in medical specialties were contacted to find out if they housed a CER. Between 29/01/2024 and 29/02/2024, all documented CPPs and CERs were asked to participate in the study. If accepted, an email was sent to members with an online questionnaire proposing four cases to be qualified, either RIPH or non-RIPH. The cases were taken from the examples provided by the Inserm guide, which also served as a reference for assessing the responses. The analysis of the responses was carried out individually and at the level of each participating committee.

Results: Thirty-five (35) centers, out of the 110 contacted, participated, producing 175 individual responses collected. The number of members per committee was 18 [12-23]. The response rate per committee was 27% [14-47]. Regarding the members' responses, the qualification was consistent with that of the Inserm guide in 79% (138), 62% (108), 66% (116), and 61% (106) of cases. At the committee level, a wide disparity between the different centers was documented, without notable differences between CER and CPP.

Conclusion: A significant heterogeneity in the qualification of research was noted between the different committees, unrelated to the type of structure (CER or CPP). Information and training systems, aimed at all types of committees, should be encouraged to standardize the research qualification step.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Therapie
Therapie 医学-药学
CiteScore
3.50
自引率
7.70%
发文量
132
审稿时长
57 days
期刊介绍: Thérapie is a peer-reviewed journal devoted to Clinical Pharmacology, Therapeutics, Pharmacokinetics, Pharmacovigilance, Addictovigilance, Social Pharmacology, Pharmacoepidemiology, Pharmacoeconomics and Evidence-Based-Medicine. Thérapie publishes in French or in English original articles, general reviews, letters to the editor reporting original findings, correspondence relating to articles or letters published in the Journal, short articles, editorials on up-to-date topics, Pharmacovigilance or Addictovigilance reports that follow the French "guidelines" concerning good practice in pharmacovigilance publications. The journal also publishes thematic issues on topical subject. The journal is indexed in the main international data bases and notably in: Biosis Previews/Biological Abstracts, Embase/Excerpta Medica, Medline/Index Medicus, Science Citation Index.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信