Skip to main content
Hauptrubriken
CME Facharzt-Training Webinare Zeitschriften Bücher e.Medpedia Podcast
Service
Jobbörse Info & Hilfe
Fachgebiete
Anästhesiologie Allgemeinmedizin Arbeitsmedizin Augenheilkunde Chirurgie Dermatologie Gynäkologie und Geburtshilfe HNO Innere Medizin Kardiologie Neurologie Onkologie und Hämatologie Orthopädie und Unfallchirurgie Pädiatrie Pathologie Psychiatrie Radiologie Rechtsmedizin Urologie Zahnmedizin
Themen
Klimawandel und Gesundheit Neues aus dem Markt COVID-19 Praxis und Beruf Seltene Erkrankungen GOÄ & EBM Panorama
Sammlungen
Kasuistiken Algorithmen & Infografiken Blickdiagnosen Arthropedia FlapFinder (für Dermatochirurgen) Videos Kongressberichterstattung Medizin für Apothekerinnen und Apotheker Für Ärztinnen und Ärzte in Weiterbildung Für Medizinstudierende
Erweiterte Suche
Anmelden
nach oben
Critical Care
Erschienen in: Critical Care 6/2006

01.12.2006 | Review

Bench-to-bedside review: Human subjects research – are more standards needed?

verfasst von: David T Huang, Mehrnaz Hadian

Erschienen in: Critical Care | Ausgabe 6/2006

Einloggen, um Zugang zu erhalten

Abstract

There are many controversial issues surrounding ethics in study design and conduct of human subjects research. In this review we briefly touch on the origin of ethics in clinical research and how the current regulations and standards came into practice. We then discuss current controversies regarding informed consent, conflicts of interest, institutional review boards, and other relevant issues such as innovative procedures and quality improvement projects. The question of whether we need more standards is a very important yet challenging one to which there is no simple answer. We address this question by reviewing and commenting on relevant literature. We conclude that what is needed are not more standards per se, but rather refinement and uniformity of current standards, and their interpretation and application both to protect human subjects and to advance medicine.
Literatur
1.
2.
3.
US Government Printing Office: The Nuremberg Code. In Reprinted in: Trials of War Criminals before the Nuremberg Military Tribunals under Control Council Law. Washington, DC: US Government Printing Office; 1949:181-182.
4.
Michels R: Are research ethics bad for our mental health? N Engl J Med 1999, 340: 1427-1430. 10.1056/NEJM199905063401811CrossRefPubMed
5.
Diekema DS: Conducting ethical research in pediatric emergency medicine. Clin Pediatr Emerg Med 2003, 4: 273-284. 10.1016/S1522-8401(03)00071-5CrossRef
6.
Lantos JD: Pediatric research: what is broken and what needs to be fixed? J Pediatr 2004, 144: 147-149. 10.1016/j.jpeds.2003.12.026CrossRefPubMed
7.
Wood KA, Huang D, Angus DC: Improving clinical trial design in acute lung injury. Crit Care Med 2003, (Suppl):S305-S311. 10.1097/01.CCM.0000057908.11686.B3
8.
World Medical Association: Declaration of Helsinki: recommendations guiding physicians in biomedical research involving human subjects. JAMA 1997, 277: 925-926. 10.1001/jama.277.11.925CrossRef
9.
The National Commission for the Protection of Human Subjects of Biomedical and Behavioral Research: The Belmont Report: Ethical Principles and Guidelines for the Protection of Human Subjects of Research. Washington, DC: US Government Printing Office (DHEW publication); 1979.
10.
Rosenbaum JR: Educating researchers: ethics and protection of human research participants. Crit Care Med 2003, (Suppl):S161-S166. 10.1097/01.CCM.0000054900.11370.FC
11.
12.
Seto B: Required education on the protection of human subjects: an NIH initiative. Kennedy Inst Ethics J 2001, 11: 87-90. 10.1353/ken.2001.0007CrossRefPubMed
13.
Stolberg SG: The biotech death of Jesse Gelsinger. NY Times Magazine 1999, 28: 136-150.
14.
Wade N: Death leads to concerns for future of gene therapy. NY Times 1999, 30 September: A22.
15.
Angell M: Is academic medicine for sale? N Engl J Med 2000, 342: 1516-1518. 10.1056/NEJM200005183422009CrossRefPubMed
16.
Shalala D: Protecting research subjects: What must be done? N Engl J Med 2000, 343: 808-810. 10.1056/NEJM200009143431112CrossRefPubMed
17.
Kodish E: Informed consent for pediatric research: Is it really possible? J Pediatr 2003, 142: 89-90. 10.1067/mpd.2003.64CrossRefPubMed
18.
19.
Karlawish JHT: Research involving cognitive impaired adults. N Engl J Med 2003, 348: 1389-1392. 10.1056/NEJMsb030172CrossRefPubMed
20.
Silverman HJ, Luce JM, Lanken PN, Morris AH, Harabin AL, Oldmixon CF, Thompson BT, Bernard GR: Recommendations for informed consent forms for critical care clinical trials. Crit Care Med 2005, 33: 867-882. 10.1097/01.CCM.0000159201.08203.10CrossRefPubMed
21.
Ellensberg SS: Informed consent: protection or obstacle? Control Clin Trials 1997, 18: 628-636. 10.1016/S0197-2456(96)00130-4CrossRef
22.
Kim SYH, Kim HM, McCallum C, Tariot PN: What do people at risk for Alzheimer disease think about surrogate consent for research? Neurology 2005, 65: 1395-1401. 10.1212/01.wnl.0000183144.61428.73CrossRefPubMed
23.
Coppolino M, Ackerson L: Do surrogate decision makers provide accurate consent for intensive care research? Chest 2001, 119: 603-612. 10.1378/chest.119.2.603CrossRefPubMed
24.
Luce JM: Is the concept of informed consent applicable to clinical research involving critically ill patients? Crit Care Med 2003, (Suppl 3):S153-S160. 10.1097/01.CCM.0000054901.80339.01
25.
Biros MH: Research without consent: current status, 2003. Ann Emerg Med 2003, 42: 550-564. 10.1067/S0196-0644(03)00490-6CrossRefPubMed
26.
Department of Health and Human Services: Protection of human subjects: informed consent and waiver of consent requirements in certain emergency research: final rules. Federal Register 1996, October: 51500-51533.
27.
Brios MH, Runge JW, Lewis RJ: Emergency medicine and the development of the FDA's final rule on informed consent and waiver of informed consent in emergency research circumstances. Acad Emerg Med 1998, 5: 359-368.CrossRef
28.
Lurie K, Benditt D: Regulated to death: the matter of informed consent for human experimentation in emergency research. Pacing Clin Electrophysiol 1995, 18: 1443-1447. 10.1111/j.1540-8159.1995.tb02607.xCrossRefPubMed
29.
Abramson NS, Meisel A, Safar P: Deferred consent: a new approach for resuscitation research on comatose patients. JAMA 1986, 255: 2466-2471. 10.1001/jama.255.18.2466CrossRefPubMed
30.
Holmes DR, Firth B, James A, Winslow R, Hodgson PK, Gamble GL, Popp RL, Harrington RA: Conflict of interest. Am Heart J 2004, 147: 228-237. 10.1016/j.ahj.2003.12.001CrossRefPubMed
31.
Campbell EG, Weissman JS, Clarridge B, Yucel R, Causino N, Blumenthal D: Characteristics of faculty serving on IRBs: research of a national survey of medical school faculty. Acad Med 2003, 78: 831-837. 10.1097/00001888-200308000-00019CrossRefPubMed
32.
Bekelman JE, Li Y, Gross CP: Scope and impact of financial conflicts of interest in biomedical research: a systemic review. JAMA 2003, 289: 454-465. 10.1001/jama.289.4.454CrossRefPubMed
33.
Ghersi D: The future of institutional review boards. Lancet Oncol 2004, 4: 325-329. 10.1016/S1470-2045(04)01473-1CrossRef
34.
Paasche-Orlow MK, Brancati FL: Assessment of medical school institutional review board policies regarding compensation of subjects for research-related injury. Am J Med 2005, 118: 175-180. 10.1016/j.amjmed.2004.03.045CrossRefPubMed
35.
36.
Hey E, Chalmers L: Are any of the criticisms of the CNEP trial true? Lancet 2006, 367: 1032-1033. 10.1016/S0140-6736(06)68445-6CrossRefPubMed
37.
Southall DP, Samuel MP: CNEP needs to return. Lancet 2006, 367: 1033-1035. 10.1016/S0140-6736(06)68446-8CrossRefPubMed
38.
Craft AW, McIntosh N: Southall and colleagues vindicated once more. Lancet 2006, 367: 1035-1037. 10.1016/S0140-6736(06)68447-XCrossRefPubMed
39.
Abelson R: Hospitals see possible conflict on medical devices for doctors. New York Times 2005,22(September):1.
40.
Eichenwald K, Kolata G: Drug trials hide conflicts for doctors. New York Times 1999,16(May):1.
41.
Silverman H, Hull SC, Sugarman J: Variability among institutional review boards' decisions within the context of a muti-center trial. Crit Care Med 2001, 29: 235-241. 10.1097/00003246-200102000-00002CrossRefPubMed
42.
Shah S, Whittle A, Wilfond B, Gensler G, Wendler D: How do IRBs apply the federal risk and benefit standards for pediatrics research? JAMA 2004, 291: 476-482. 10.1001/jama.291.4.476CrossRefPubMed
43.
Office of Inspector General: Institutional Review Boards: Their Role in Reviewing Approved Research. Washington, DC: US Government Printing Office; 1998.
44.
Vick CC, Finan KR, Kiefe C, Neumayer L, Hawn MT: Variation in Institutional Review processes for a multisite observational study. Am J Surg 2005, 190: 805-809. 10.1016/j.amjsurg.2005.07.024CrossRefPubMed
45.
Wendler D, Emanuel EJ: What is a 'minor' increase over minimal risk? J Pediatr 2005, 147: 575-578. 10.1016/j.jpeds.2005.07.013CrossRefPubMed
46.
47.
Burman WJ, Reves RR, Cohn DL, Schooley RT: Breaking the camel's back: multicenter clinical trials and local institutional review boards. Am Intern Med 2001, 134: 152-157.CrossRef
48.
Wolf LE, Walden JF, Lo B: Human subjects issues and IRB review in practice-based research. Ann Fam Med 2005, (Suppl):S30-S37. 10.1370/afm.302
49.
Kofke WA, Rie MA: Research ethics and law of healthcare system quality improvement: The conflict of cost containment and quality. Crit Care Med 2003, (Suppl):S143-S152. 10.1097/01.CCM.0000054902.85329.50
50.
Strasberg SM, Ludbrook PA: Who oversees innovative practice? Is there a structire that meets the monitoring needs of new techniques? J Am Coll Surg 2003, 196: 938-948. 10.1016/S1072-7515(03)00112-1CrossRefPubMed
51.
Reitsma AM, Moreno JD: Ethics of innovative surgery: US Surgeons' definition, knowledge, and attitudes. J Am Coll Surg 2005, 200: 103-110. 10.1016/j.jamcollsurg.2004.09.032CrossRefPubMed
52.
Kristjanson LJ, Hanson EJ, Balneaves L: Research in palliative care populations: ethical issues. J Palliat Care 1994, 10: 10-15.PubMed
53.
Krouse RS, Easson AM, Angelos P: Ethical considerations and barriers to research in surgical palliative care. J Am Coll Surg 2003, 196: 469-474. 10.1016/S1072-7515(02)01890-2CrossRefPubMed
54.
Kasa S, De Conno F: Palliative care research. Eur J Cancer 2001, 37: S153-S159. 10.1016/S0959-8049(01)00260-XCrossRef
55.
McCullough LB, Coverdale JH, Chervenak FA: A comprehensive ethical framework for responsibly designing and conducting pharmacologic research that involves pregnant women. Am J Obstet Gynecol 2005, 193: 901-907. 10.1016/j.ajog.2005.06.020CrossRefPubMed
56.
Reitsma AM, Moreno JD: Meternal-fetal research and human research protections policy. Clin Perinatol 2003, 30: 141-153. 10.1016/S0095-5108(02)00079-9CrossRefPubMed
57.
Moore V: The Regents of the University of California. 271 Cal Rptr 1436 793. 2nd 479 (Cal 1990)
58.
59.
Kaiser J: Court decides tissue samples belong to university, not patients. Science Magazine 2006, 312: 5772.
60.
Wendler D, Foster H: Why we need legal standards for pediatric research. J Pediatr 2004, 144: 150-153. 10.1016/j.jpeds.2003.10.033CrossRefPubMed
61.
Truog RD, Robinson W, Randolph A, Morris A: Is informed consent always necessary for randomized controlled trials? N Engl J Med 1999, 340: 804-807. 10.1056/NEJM199903113401013CrossRefPubMed
62.
Truog RD: will ethical requirements bring critical care research to a halt? Intensive Care Med 2005, 31: 338-344. 10.1007/s00134-004-2480-5CrossRefPubMed
63.
Weijer C, Miller PB: When are research risks reasonable in relation to anticipated benefits? Nat Med 2004, 10: 570-573. 10.1038/nm0604-570CrossRefPubMed
64.
Emanuel EJ: Institutional review board reform. N Engl J Med 2002, 347: 1285-1286. 10.1056/NEJM200210173471620CrossRefPubMed
65.
Christian MC, Goldberg JL, Killen J, Abrams JS, McCabe MS, Mauer JK, Wittes RE: A central institutional review board for multi-institutional trials. N Engl J Med 2002, 346: 1405-1408. 10.1056/NEJM200205023461814CrossRefPubMed
66.
67.
68.
69.
Grimes v. Kennedy Krieger Institute, Inc782 A.2d 807 (Md Ct of App 2001, reconsideration denied, Oct. 11, 2001)
70.
Metadaten
Titel
Bench-to-bedside review: Human subjects research – are more standards needed?
verfasst von
David T Huang
Mehrnaz Hadian
Publikationsdatum
01.12.2006
Verlag
BioMed Central
Erschienen in
Critical Care / Ausgabe 6/2006
Elektronische ISSN: 1364-8535
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1186/cc5114

Weitere Artikel der Ausgabe 6/2006

Critical Care 6/2006 Zur Ausgabe

Research

Activated protein C improves intestinal microcirculation in experimental endotoxaemia in the rat

Research

Prediction of fluid responsiveness using respiratory variations in left ventricular stroke area by transoesophageal echocardiographic automated border detection in mechanically ventilated patients

Commentary

Recently published papers: putting fluids in and taking fluids out

Research

A modified McCabe score for stratification of patients after intensive care unit discharge: the Sabadell score

Research

Microcirculatory alterations induced by sedation in intensive care patients. Effects of midazolam alone and in association with sufentanil

Research

Effect of extracorporeal liver support by MARS and Prometheus on serum cytokines in acute-on-chronic liver failure

Neu im Fachgebiet AINS

Akuter Schwindel: Wann lohnt sich eine MRT?

28.04.2024 Schwindel Nachrichten

Akuter Schwindel stellt oft eine diagnostische Herausforderung dar. Wie nützlich dabei eine MRT ist, hat eine Studie aus Finnland untersucht. Immerhin einer von sechs Patienten wurde mit akutem ischämischem Schlaganfall diagnostiziert.

Bei schweren Reaktionen auf Insektenstiche empfiehlt sich eine spezifische Immuntherapie

25.04.2024 Allergien und Intoleranzreaktionen Nachrichten

Insektenstiche sind bei Erwachsenen die häufigsten Auslöser einer Anaphylaxie. Einen wirksamen Schutz vor schweren anaphylaktischen Reaktionen bietet die allergenspezifische Immuntherapie. Jedoch kommt sie noch viel zu selten zum Einsatz.

Hinter dieser Appendizitis steckte ein Erreger

23.04.2024 Appendizitis Nachrichten

Schmerzen im Unterbauch, aber sonst nicht viel, was auf eine Appendizitis hindeutete: Ein junger Mann hatte Glück, dass trotzdem eine Laparoskopie mit Appendektomie durchgeführt und der Wurmfortsatz histologisch untersucht wurde.

Ärztliche Empathie hilft gegen Rückenschmerzen

23.04.2024 Leitsymptom Rückenschmerzen Nachrichten

Personen mit chronischen Rückenschmerzen, die von einfühlsamen Ärzten und Ärztinnen betreut werden, berichten über weniger Beschwerden und eine bessere Lebensqualität.

Update AINS

Bestellen Sie unseren Fach-Newsletter und bleiben Sie gut informiert.

hier abonnieren
Bildnachweise