Abstract
Background Research Ethics Committees (RECs) review the ethical, legal, and methodological standard of clinical research. However, complying with all requirements and professional expectations while maintaining the necessary scientific and ethical standards can be challenging for applicants and members of the REC alike. There is a need for accessible guidelines and resources to help medical researchers and REC members navigate the legal and ethical requirements and the process of their review.
Methods We employed an explorative search for resources on the websites of a purposively selected sample of relevant stakeholders including 12 national umbrella organizations (six German-language and six English-language), three English-language international umbrella organizations, and 16 national REC’s of major university hospitals (eight German- and eight English-language). We qualitatively mapped the identified resources onto the guiding principles of ethical clinical research and 35 related checkpoints. To describe the content of the resources we conducted a thematic analysis.
Results We extracted a total of 233 resources, including templates (n = 134, 58.5%), guidelines/recommendations (n = 62, 26.6%), checklists (n = 23, 9.9%), tools (n = 5, 2.2%), flowcharts (n = 5, 2.2%), glossaries (n = 3, 1.3%), and one (0.4%) software program. We extracted 101 German and 132 English resources created between 2004 and 2023. The majority (n = 204; 87.6%) could be assigned to one checkpoint. The remaining 29 (12.5%) resources were considered unspecific (e.g., a checklist which documents to be submitted for a German drug trial). The specific resources are discussed per checkpoint.
Conclusion While much support is available for some aspects such as participant information and informed consent forms, it is lacking in other areas such as study design, analysis, and biometrics. More support should be provided in these areas to ensure that research projects are methodologically sound. A more detailed analysis of the quality of available resources could help identify other areas of need.
Competing Interest Statement
The authors have declared no competing interest.
Funding Statement
This work was conducted as part of the GUIDEME project funded by the German Federal Ministry of Education and Research (BMBF 01GP2208A). DS received the funding. The funder had no role in the study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript.
Author Declarations
I confirm all relevant ethical guidelines have been followed, and any necessary IRB and/or ethics committee approvals have been obtained.
Yes
I confirm that all necessary patient/participant consent has been obtained and the appropriate institutional forms have been archived, and that any patient/participant/sample identifiers included were not known to anyone (e.g., hospital staff, patients or participants themselves) outside the research group so cannot be used to identify individuals.
Yes
I understand that all clinical trials and any other prospective interventional studies must be registered with an ICMJE-approved registry, such as ClinicalTrials.gov. I confirm that any such study reported in the manuscript has been registered and the trial registration ID is provided (note: if posting a prospective study registered retrospectively, please provide a statement in the trial ID field explaining why the study was not registered in advance).
Yes
I have followed all appropriate research reporting guidelines, such as any relevant EQUATOR Network research reporting checklist(s) and other pertinent material, if applicable.
Yes
Footnotes
This version of the manuscript has been revised following peer review comments. The updated version aims to convey the exploratory nature of this review more and highlight that the scope of the search is limited to a purposively selected sample of sources.
1 The term IRB is more commonly used in America. In this article, we will use the term REC, which is more common in Europe.
2 Note that we have intentionally excluded textbooks and published papers from this list, as they are not as readily accessible and require a greater time commitment that is rarely achievable in application and review procedures for individual clinical studies.
3 Note that this limits the comparability of the number of resources between sources as we did not count the number of all resources available but the number of resources, not yet presented at previously extracted sources.
4 For seven stakeholders, we did not find any additional resources to extract.
5 Our search suggests that some RECs such as for example the University Hospital Bristol and University Hospital Birmingham offer institution specific resources regarding sponsorship. These did not meet our inclusion criteria but are presented in the data file on OSF under ‘other resources’.
6 Please note that the collection of biological materials was addressed in 13 additional resources including informed consent templates, insurance templates, and templates for participant information, which are grouped under different checkpoints.
7 However, financial arrangements and compensation was also mentioned in two additional resources. Guideline R134 grouped under participant recruiting explores the option of financial compensation and template R217 grouped under study financing has a section for financial arrangements.
Data Availability
All data produced are available online at https://osf.io/e7dmt/.
List of Abbreviations
- AKEK
- Arbeitskreis Medizinischer Ethikkommissionen
- IRB
- Institutional Review Board
- REC
- Research Ethics Committee
- WHO
- World Health Organizationn
