Regulatory, scientific, and ethical issues arising from institutional activity in one of the 90 Italian Research Ethics Committees

Retrospective observational studies: Lights and shadows for medical writers

A retrospective study (by definition non-interventional) is a purely observational review and/or reassessment of database records with the aim of analyzing previous events of interest. The ethical and scientific standards for conducting biomedical research with humans have been established in international guidelines. Nevertheless, the reporting of ethical considerations in human research is not yet agreed upon globally, although some progress has been made in recent years. If a study has been granted exemption from ethics approval, this should be indicated in the manuscript (including the reasons for the exemption) and, if formal review by an ethics committee is not available, a statement should be included indicating that the research was conducted according to the principles of the Declaration of Helsinki. Editors play an important role in adherence to these ethical requirements for all submitted and published research papers in their journals. This short review paper focuses on the main lights and shadows of ethical aspects for conducting retrospective observational studies in humans and implications for medical writers.

The Multidimensional Nature of Research Ethics: Letters Issued by a French Research Ethics Committee Included Similar Proportions of Ethical and Scientific Queries

Debate is ongoing concerning the activities and functioning of Research Ethics Committees (REC), especially a possible science-or-ethics dichotomy in research ethics review. We retrospectively analyzed 145 letters issued by a French REC over 18 months. All queries were classified in three levels: qualification (definition of the problem), category (aggregation of broader topics) and finally fields (ethical, scientific, or administrative). Overall, 971 queries were identified, of which 407 (42%), 379 (39%), and 135 (14%) were deemed ethical, scientific, and administrative queries, respectively. The most frequent concern was about participants' information. The main influencing factor was the profession of the reporting readers-scientific queries were more frequently raised by a methodologist, whereas ethical queries were more frequently raised by an ethicist. These results indicate that research ethics review is a multidimensional task that should be considered a collaborative effort.

Correction to: Regulatory, scientific, and ethical issues arising from institutional activity in one of the 90 Italian Research Ethics Committees

An amendment to this paper has been published and can be accessed via the original article.