Huge variation in obtaining ethical permission for a non-interventional observational study in Europe

Dylan W. De Lange, Bertrand Guidet, Finn H. Andersen, Antonio Artigas, Guidio Bertolini, Rui Moreno, Steffen Christensen, Maurizio Cecconi, Christina Agvald-Ohman, Primoz Gradisek, Christian Jung, Brian J. Marsh, Sandra Oeyen, Bernardo Bollen Pinto, Wojciech Szczeklik, Ximena Watson, Tilemachos Zafeiridis, Hans Flaatten

Research output: Contribution to journalArticleResearch

12 Citations (Scopus)


© 2019 The Author(s). Background: Ethical approval (EA) must be obtained before medical research can start. We describe the differences in EA for an pseudonymous, non-interventional, observational European study. Methods: Sixteen European national coordinators (NCs) of the international study on very old intensive care patients answered an online questionnaire concerning their experience getting EA. Results: N = 8/16 of the NCs could apply at one single national ethical committee (EC), while the others had to apply to various regional ECs and/or individual hospital institutional research boards (IRBs). The time between applying for EA and the first decision varied between 7 days and 300 days. In 9/16 informed consent from the patient was not deemed necessary; in 7/16 informed consent was required from the patient or relatives. The upload of coded data to a central database required additional information in 14/16. In 4/16 the NCs had to ask separate approval to keep a subject identification code list to de-pseudonymize the patients if questions would occur. Only 2/16 of the NCs agreed that informed consent was necessary for this observational study. Overall, 6/16 of the NCs were satisfied with the entire process and 8/16 were (very) unsatisfied. 11/16 would welcome a European central EC that would judge observational studies for all European countries. Discussion: Variations in the process and prolonged time needed to get EA for observational studies hampers inclusion of patients in some European countries. This might have a negative influence on the external validity. Further harmonization of ethical approval process across Europe is welcomed for low-risk observational studies. Conclusion: Getting ethical approval for low-risk, non-interventional, observational studies varies enormously across European countries.
Original languageEnglish
Article number39
JournalBMC Medical Ethics
Publication statusPublished - 3 Jun 2019


Dive into the research topics of 'Huge variation in obtaining ethical permission for a non-interventional observational study in Europe'. Together they form a unique fingerprint.

Cite this