Article Text
PDFCommentary
Code-consistent ethics review: defence of a hybrid account
Statistics from Altmetric.com
Footnotes
Competing interests None declared.
Provenance and peer review Commissioned; internally peer reviewed.
Request Permissions
If you wish to reuse any or all of this article please use the link below which will take you to the Copyright Clearance Center’s RightsLink service. You will be able to get a quick price and instant permission to reuse the content in many different ways.
Copyright information:
Published by the BMJ Publishing Group Limited. For permission to use (where not already granted under a licence) please go to http://www.bmj.com/company/products-services/rights-and-licensing/
Linked Articles
- Feature article
- Commentary
Read the full text or download the PDF:
Other content recommended for you
- The ‘ ethics committee ’ job is administrative: a response to commentaries
- The job of ‘ ethics committees ’
- Reasonable disagreement and the justification of pre-emptive ethics governance in social research: a response to Hammersley
- Hybrid approach in hypoplastic left heart syndrome
- The structure of ethics review: expert ethics committees and the challenge of voluntary research euthanasia
- Contesting the science / ethics distinction in the review of clinical research
- Myocardial “ hybrid ” revascularisation with minimally invasive direct coronary artery bypass grafting combined with coronary angioplasty: preliminary results of a multicentre study
- Temporal trends analysis of tuberculosis morbidity in mainland China from 1997 to 2025 using a new SARIMA - NARNNX hybrid model
- Analysis of preoperative condition and interstage mortality in Norwood and hybrid procedures for hypoplastic left heart syndrome using the Aristotle scoring system
- Deception of children in research