Cited by 32Ethics in Clinical ResearchBiomedical Ethics and RegulationEthics and bioethics in healthcare

Evolution of European Union legislation on emergency research

Mentzelopoulos, Spyros D., Mantzanas, Michail, van Belle, Gerald, Nichol, Graham·2015·Resuscitation

Abstract

Aim Emergency research is necessary to prevent exposure of patients to unvalidated clinical practice (nonmaleficence), and to improve the dismal prognosis of disorders requiring emergent treatment such as cardiac arrest (beneficence). Regulations that govern clinical research should conform to bioethical principles of respect for nonmaleficence, beneficence, autonomy, and justice. Our objectives are to review the evolution of European Union (EU) legislation on emergency research, and to identify potentially remaining problems. Data sources EU legislative sources on clinical research and medical literature describing the impact of EU Regulations on emergency research. Results Article 5 of EU Directive 2001/20/EC required consent before enrolment in a research study to ensure the autonomy of potentially incapacitated research subjects. However, obtaining such consent is often impossible in emergency situations. Directive 2001/20/EC was criticized for potentially preventing emergency research. Several EU Member States addressed this problem by permitting deferred consent. International ethical guidelines supporting deferred consent were also cited by Good Clinical Practice Directive 2005/28/EC. However, Directive 2001/20/EC was not revised to achieve harmonization of EU emergency research, thus resulting in ongoing "ambiguity" as regards to emergency research legitimacy. This will be definitively addressed by applying EU Regulation No. 536/2014 and repealing Directive 2001/20/EC…

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/j.resuscitation.2015.03.006

Cites

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • Deferred consent is considered as an ethically acceptable alternative for low-risk research, ensuring both the possibility of research benefit and respect for patient/family autonomy.

    “This is considered as an ethically acceptable alternative for low-risk research, ensuring both the possibility of research benefit and respect for patient/family autonomy. 325,326”

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Mentzelopoulos, S. D., Mantzanas, M., van Belle, G., & Nichol, G.
Affiliations
  • National and Kapodistrian University of Athens (GR)
  • University of Washington (US)
Corresponding author
Nichol, Graham
Venue
Resuscitation
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2015-06
Volume
91
Pages
84-91
ISSN
0300-9572 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2054030937
Cited by
32
References
0
Citations by year
2026: 1 · 2025: 3 · 2024: 2 · 2023: 3 · 2022: 2 · 2021: 4 · 2020: 4 · 2019: 1 · 2018: 1 · 2017: 2 · 2016: 2 · 2015: 7
FWCI
0.58
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Resuscitation (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Public Health, Environmental and Occupational Health › Ethics in Clinical Research
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Physiology › Biomedical Ethics and Regulation
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Public Health, Environmental and Occupational Health › Ethics and bioethics in healthcare
Keywords
emergency research, Directive 2001/20/EC, deferred consent, informed consent, non-maleficence, beneficence, research ethics, cardiac arrest, good clinical practice, emergency care
MeSH terms
Emergency Medicine, European Union, Humans, Informed Consent, Ethics, Research, Biomedical Research

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review