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}
[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.
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.