PLoS One
http://www.plosone.org/
[Accessed 1 August 2015]

.
Net Costs Due to Seasonal Influenza Vaccination — United States, 2005–2009
Cristina Carias, Carrie Reed, Inkyu K. Kim, Ivo M. Foppa, Matthew Biggerstaff, Martin I. Meltzer, Lyn Finelli, David L. Swerdlow
Research Article | published 31 Jul 2015 | PLOS ONE 10.1371/journal.pone.0132922

An Assessment of the Expected Cost-Effectiveness of Quadrivalent Influenza Vaccines in Ontario, Canada Using a Static Model
Ayman Chit, Julie Roiz, Samuel Aballea
Research Article | published 29 Jul 2015 | PLOS ONE 10.1371/journal.pone.0133606

The Participation of HPV-Vaccinated Women in a National Cervical Screening Program: Population-Based Cohort Study
Eva Herweijer, Adina L. Feldman, Alexander Ploner, Lisen Arnheim-Dahlström, Ingrid Uhnoo, Eva Netterlid, Joakim Dillner, Pär Sparén, Karin Sundström
Research Article | published 28 Jul 2015 | PLOS ONE 10.1371/journal.pone.0134185

Investigation of a Measles Outbreak in China to Identify Gaps in Vaccination Coverage, Routes of Transmission, and Interventions
Xiang Zheng, Ningjing Zhang, Xiaoshu Zhang, Lixin Hao, Qiru Su, Haijun Wang, Kongyan Meng, Binglin Zhang, Jianfeng Liu, Huaqing Wang, Huiming Luo, Li Li, Hui Li, Chao Ma
Research Article | published 24 Jul 2015 | PLOS ONE 10.1371/journal.pone.0133983

Research Article
A Scoping Review of Empirical Research Relating to Quality and Effectiveness of Research Ethics Review
Stuart G. Nicholls, Tavis P. Hayes, Jamie C. Brehaut, Michael McDonald, Charles Weijer, Raphael Saginur, Dean Fergusson
Published: July 30, 2015
DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0133639
Abstract
Background
To date there is no established consensus of assessment criteria for evaluating research ethics review.
Methods
We conducted a scoping review of empirical research assessing ethics review processes in order to identify common elements assessed, research foci, and research gaps to aid in the development of assessment criteria. Electronic searches of Ovid Medline, PsychInfo, and the Cochrane DSR, ACP Journal Club, DARE, CCTR, CMR, HTA, and NHSEED, were conducted. After de-duplication, 4234 titles and abstracts were reviewed. Altogether 4036 articles were excluded following screening of titles, abstracts and full text. A total of 198 articles included for final data extraction.
Results
Few studies originated from outside North America and Europe. No study reported using an underlying theory or framework of quality/effectiveness to guide study design or analyses. We did not identify any studies that had involved a controlled trial – randomised or otherwise – of ethics review procedures or processes. Studies varied substantially with respect to outcomes assessed, although tended to focus on structure and timeliness of ethics review.
Discussion
Our findings indicate a lack of consensus on appropriate assessment criteria, exemplified by the varied study outcomes identified, but also a fragmented body of research. To date research has been largely quantitative, with little attention given to stakeholder experiences, and is largely cross sectional. A lack of longitudinal research to date precludes analyses of change or assessment of quality improvement in ethics review.