The phrase "a previous study approved" is not correct as it lacks clarity and context.
It could be used in a context where you are referring to a study that has received approval, but it needs additional information to be fully understandable.
Example: "According to a previous study approved by the ethics committee, the results were promising."
Alternatives: "an earlier approved study" or "a prior study that was approved".
The samples used were either derived from previous studies, approved by local ethical committees, or obtained from AI centers through their routine practice so no further ethical approval was required for the present analysis.
Clinical patient data were retrieved from a patient database originating from a previous imaging study approved by the local institutional review board, for which the patients provided written informed consent.
All the blood samples were collected in a previous longitudinal study, approved by the ethics committee from the St-Antoine Hospital (Paris, France), with written informed consent from infected patients [45], [46].
Fifty four of the genotyped samples were derived from a previous study [ 7] and were approved for this research by the University of Pretoria Ethical Committee (E087-12).
On the basis of our experience of conducting a previous study in schools in Bangladesh (approved by a national ethics committee) and advice received from a number of academics who work in schools in the UK, we will obtain parental consent on an opt-out basis as follows.
The genotyped samples were derived from a previous study [ 23] and were approved for this research by the University of Pretoria Ethical Committee (E087-12).
The 26 cases are referred to as the Lund-HER2-SNP set and are part of a previous study of HER2-amplified BC that was approved by the regional Ethical Committee in Lund (reg. no. LU240-01 and 2009/658), waiving the requirement for informed consent for the study [ 5].
A pre-designed and approved questionnaire used in a previous study [ 14] which includes medical history was answered for all participants with the help of their parents.
This work represents the secondary analysis of data taken from a previous study [ 35] carried out in 2009, and which was approved by an independent ethics committee at the Faculty of Medicine, Chiang Mai University.
Once this study was approved by the Research Ethics Board at the University of Toronto, key informants who participated in a previous study regarding rehabilitation supply and demand at the University of Toronto [ 21] were asked to nominate potential participants for the panels.
