medigraphic.com
SPANISH

Revista ADM Órgano Oficial de la Asociación Dental Mexicana

ISSN 0001-0944 (Print)
Órgano Oficial de la Asociación Dental Mexicana
  • Contents
  • View Archive
  • Information
    • General Information        
    • Directory
  • Publish
    • Instructions for authors        
    • Send manuscript
  • medigraphic.com
    • Home
    • Journals index            
    • Register / Login
  • Mi perfil

2014, Number 5

<< Back Next >>

Rev ADM 2014; 71 (5)

Research Ethics Committees: the conscience of the researcher to guarantee the protection of participants in clinical research in dentistry and oral medicine

Cerda CBI, Garrocho RJA, Pozos GAJ
Full text How to cite this article

Language: Spanish
References: 10
Page: 256-260
PDF size: 165.09 Kb.


Key words:

Research Ethics Committee, ethics, bioethics, stomatology, clinical research.

ABSTRACT

Research Ethics Committees (RECs) are multidisciplinary teams that protect human subjects participating or who are going to participate in clinical research in the field of oral health or any other biomedical field. The REC reviews and evaluates the bioethical implications of a proposed research protocol and then either grants its authorization or chooses to reject it. All institutions that carry out research in the field of biomedicine are required to have an REC, including schools and faculties of Dentistry and Oral Medicine. The members of these institutions, including faculty, researchers, students, and patients should know what an REC is and what it does. The aims of this study are: 1) to present the historical facts that led to the creation of the firsts RECs, and 2) to review the internal structure of RECs, their function, and the international and national guidelines that regulate them. As such, this article could be described as an introductory guide to RECs.


REFERENCES

  1. Comisión Nacional de Bioética. Guía nacional para la integración y el funcionamiento de los comités de ética en investigación. CONBIOÉTICA; 2013.

  2. Ghooi RB. The Nuremberg Code –a critique. Perspect Clin Res. 2011; 2: 72-76.

  3. Shuster E. The Nuremberg Code: Hippocratic ethics and human rights. Lancet. 1998; 351: 974-977.

  4. Sierra X. Ethics in medical research in humans: a historical perspective. Actas Dermo-Sifiliogr. 2011; 102: 395-401.

  5. Smolin DM. The Tuskegee syphilis experiment, social change, and the future of bioethics. Faulkner Law Rev. 2012; 3: 229-251.

  6. Cassell EJ. The principles of the Belmont report revisited. Hastings Cent Rep. 2000; 30: 12-21.

  7. Word Medical Association. Declaration of Helsinki. World Med J. 2013; 5: 99-202.

  8. Emanuel EJ. Reconsidering the Declaration of Helsinki. Lancet. 2013; 381: 1532-1533.

  9. Secretaría de Salud. Norma Oficial Mexicana NOM-012-SSA3-2012.

  10. De Aluja AS. Animales de laboratorio y la Norma Oficial Mexicana. Gac Med Mex. 2002; 138: 295-298.




2020     |     www.medigraphic.com

Mi perfil

C?MO CITAR (Vancouver)

Rev ADM. 2014;71