1. Chalmers I and Glasziou P. Protecting the public from the adverse effects of confused research ethics (under review).
Google Scholar2. Salman, RA-S, Beller, E, Kagan, J, et al. Increasing value and reducing waste in biomedical research regulation and management. Lancet 2014; 383: 176–185.
Google Scholar | Crossref | Medline3. Chalmers, I, Glasziou, P. Avoidable waste in the production and reporting of research evidence. Lancet 2009; 374: 86–89.
Google Scholar | Crossref | Medline | ISI4. Chalmers I and Glasziou P. The BMJ Opinion: Paul Glasziou and Iain Chalmers: Is 85% of Health Research Really “Wasted”? See https://blogs.bmj.com/bmj/2016/01/14/paul-glasziou-and-iain-chalmers-is-85-of-health-research-really-wasted/ (2016, last accessed 7 June 2021).
Google Scholar5. Moher D, Glasziou P, Chalmers I, et al. Increasing value and reducing waste in biomedical research: who's listening? Lancet 2016; 387: 1573–1586.
Google Scholar6. Chalmers, I . Regulation of therapeutic research is compromising the interests of patients. Int J Pharmaceut Med 2007; 21: 395–404.
Google Scholar | Crossref7. Roberts, I, Prieto-Merino, D, Shakur, H, et al. Effect of consent rituals on mortality in emergency care research. Lancet 2011; 377: 1071–1072.
Google Scholar | Crossref | Medline | ISI8. Collins R, Doll R and Peto R. Ethics of clinical trials. In: Williams C, ed. Introducing New Treatments for Cancer: Practical, Ethical and Legal Problems. Hoboken, NJ: Wiley-Blackwell, 1992: 49–66.
Google Scholar9. de Lange, DW, Guidet, B, Andersen, FH, et al. Huge variation in obtaining ethical permission for a non-interventional observational study in Europe. BMC Medical Ethics 2019; 20: 39–39.
Google Scholar | Crossref | Medline10. Glasziou P and Chalmers I. Ethics review roulette: what can we learn? BMJ 2004; 328: 121–122.
Google Scholar11. NHS Health Research Authority (HRA). Do I Need NHS REC Review? See http://hra-decisiontools.org.uk/ethics/ (undated, last accessed 14 May 2021).
Google Scholar12. Office for Human Research Protections (US). 45 CFR 46. See www.hhs.gov/ohrp/regulations-and-policy/regulations/45-cfr-46/index.html (2021, last accessed 14 May 2021).
Google Scholar13. US Government Publishing Office (GPO). Electronic Code of Federal Regulations: Part 46-Protection of Human Subjects. See www.ecfr.gov/cgi-bin/text-idx?m=03&d=09&y=2021&cd=20210309&submit=GO&SID=ed43263cf1cc77a41e3a7d34c2074364&node=pt45.1.46&pd=20210101 (9 March 2021, last accessed 11 March 2021).
Google Scholar14. Stunnenberg, BC, Deinum, J, Nijenhuis, T, et al. N-of-1 trials: evidence-based clinical care or medical research that requires IRB approval? A practical flowchart based on an ethical framework. Healthcare (Basel) 2020; 8: 49–49.
Google Scholar | Crossref15. Tikkinen, KAO, Malekzadeh, R, Schlegel, M, et al. COVID-19 clinical trials: learning from exceptions in the research chaos. Nature Med 2020; 26: 1671–1672.
Google Scholar | Crossref | Medline16. Mather N. Piloting Progress: The new HRA Fast-track Ethics Review – A Blog by Dr Nicole Mather, HRA Non-executive Director. See www.hra.nhs.uk/about-us/news-updates/piloting-progress-new-hra-fast-track-ethics-review-blog-dr-nicole-mather-hra-non-executive-director/ (2021, last accessed 10 March 2021).
Google Scholar17. NHS Health Research Authority (HRA). Fast-track Research Ethics Review Pilot. See www.hra.nhs.uk/approvals-amendments/what-approvals-do-i-need/research-ethics-committee-review/fast-track-research-ethics-review-pilot/ (2021, last accessed 11 March 2021).
Google Scholar18. Reece, S, Brown, CS, Dunning, J, et al. The UK's multidisciplinary response to an Ebola epidemic. Clin Med (Lond) 2017; 17: 332–337.
Google Scholar | Crossref | Medline19. NHS Health Research Authority. Combined Review. See www.hra.nhs.uk/planning-and-improving-research/policies-standards-legislation/clinical-trials-investigational-medicinal-products-ctimps/combined-ways-working-pilot/ (2021, last accessed 28 May 2021).
Google Scholar20. NHS Health Research Authority. Partnerships. See https://www.hra.nhs.uk/about-us/partnerships/ (undated, last accessed 28 May 2021).
Google Scholar21. Scott AM, Chalmers I, Barnett A, et al. ‘The ethics approval took 20 months on a trial which was meant to help terminally ill cancer patients. In the end we had to send the funding back’: a survey of views on human research ethics reviews. J Med Ethics 2021: medethics-2020-106785. DOI: 10.1136/medethics-2020-106785.
Google Scholar22. Cochrane. Cochrane-REWARD prize – 2017 Award Winner: SYRCLE. See www.cochrane.org/news/cochrane-reward-prize-2017-award-winner-syrcle (2019, last accessed 28 May 2021).
Google Scholar23. NHS Health Research Authority. Make it Public: Transparency and Openness in Health and Social Care Research. See www.hra.nhs.uk/planning-and-improving-research/policies-standards-legislation/research-transparency/make-it-public-transparency-and-openness-health-and-social-care-research/ (2020, last accessed 28 May 2021).
Google Scholar24. Navaie W. The rise of Complex Innovative Design (CID) Trials during the COVID-19 Pandemic – A Blog by HRA Engagement Manager Will Navaie. See https://www.hra.nhs.uk/about-us/news-updates/rise-complex-innovative-design-cid-trials-during-covid-19-pandemic-blog-hra-engagement-manager-will-navaie/ (2020, last accessed 14 May 2021).
Google Scholar25. Schopper, D, Dawson, A, Upshur, R, et al. Innovations in research ethics governance in humanitarian settings. BMC Med Ethics 2015; 16: 10–10.
Google Scholar | Crossref | Medline26. Scott, AM, Kolstoe, S, Ploem, MCC, et al. Exempting low-risk health and medical research from ethics reviews: comparing Australia, the United Kingdom, the United States and the Netherlands. Health Res Policy Syst 2020; 18: 11–11.
Google Scholar | Crossref | Medline27. Barnett A. Current Costs and Potential Savings from Adopting a Simplified Research Ethics System. See https://osf.io/esdjr/ (2020, last accessed 19 March 2021).
Google Scholar28. NHS Health Research Authority. Fast-track Review of Clinical Trials for Non-COVID 19 Research to Continue. See www.hra.nhs.uk/about-us/news-updates/fast-track-review-clinical-trials-non-covid-19-research-continue/ (2021, last accessed 14 May 2021).
Google Scholar29. Massett, HA, Hampp, SL, Goldberg, JL, et al. Meeting the challenge: the National Cancer Institute's central institutional review board for multi-site research. J Clin Oncol 2018; 36: 819–824.
Google Scholar | Crossref | Medline30. Queensland Health Office of Health and Medical Research. Model for Single Ethical Review of Multi-centre Research for Queensland Health. See www.health.qld.gov.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0025/367171/serp_model_1004.pdf (2011, last accessed 28 May 2021).
Google Scholar31. Clinical Trials Ontario. Streamlined Research Ethics Review. See www.ctontario.ca/cto-programs/streamlined-research-ethics-review/ (2021, last accessed 11 March 2021).
Google Scholar32. NHS Health Research Authority (HRA). Proportionate Review Information and Guidance for Applicants. See https://s3.eu-west-2.amazonaws.com/www.hra.nhs.uk/media/documents/proportionate-review-information-guidance-document.pdf (2021, last accessed 11 March 2021).
Google Scholar33. Scott AM, Bryant EA, Byrne JA, Taylor N, Barnett AG. “No Country Bureaucratised its way to Excellence”: A Content Analysis of Comments on a Petition to Streamline Australian Research Ethics and Governance Processes. J Empir Res Hum Res Ethics. 2021 Oct 12:15562646211048268. doi: 10.1177/15562646211048268.
Google Scholar34. Nosek B. Societies’ Role in Improving Openness and Reproducibility of Research: Changing a Research Culture toward Openness and Reproducibility. See https://osf.io/r9v3p/ (2020, last accessed 19 March 2021).
Google Scholar35. NHS Health Research Authority (HRA). Applying to a Research Ethics Committee. See www.hra.nhs.uk/approvals-amendments/what-approvals-do-i-need/research-ethics-committee-review/applying-research-ethics-committee/ (2021, last accessed 14 May 2021).
Google Scholar36. Roy A. The Pandemic is a Portal. See https://www.ft.com/content/10d8f5e8-74eb-11ea-95fe-fcd274e920ca (last accessed 4 April 2020).
Google Scholar