Literature DB >> 14747505

How do institutional review boards apply the federal risk and benefit standards for pediatric research?

Seema Shah1, Amy Whittle, Benjamin Wilfond, Gary Gensler, David Wendler.   

Abstract

CONTEXT: Federal regulations allow children in the United States to be enrolled in clinical research only when the institutional review board (IRB) determines that the risks are minimal or a minor increase over minimal, or that the research offers a prospect of direct benefit. Despite this reliance on IRBs, no data exist on how IRBs apply the risk and benefit categories for pediatric research.
OBJECTIVE: To determine how IRB chairpersons apply the federal risk and benefit categories for pediatric research. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: Telephone survey, conducted between May and August 2002 of 188 randomly selected chairpersons of IRBs in the Unites States. The survey consisted of 21 questions to assess the application of federal risk standards to research procedures, whether certain interventions offer a prospect of direct benefit to participating children, and the extent to which IRBs use the federal definition of minimal risk when categorizing the risks of research procedures in children. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Responses regarding categorization of the risk level and direct benefits of pediatric research procedures.
RESULTS: A single blood draw was the only procedure categorized as minimal risk by a majority (152 or 81%) of the 188 respondents. An electromyogram was categorized as minimal or a minor increase over minimal risk by 100 (53%) and as more than a minor increase over minimal risk by 77 (41%). Allergy skin testing was categorized as minimal risk by 43 IRB chairpersons (23%), a minor increase over minimal risk by 81 (43%), and more than a minor increase over minimal risk by 51 (27%). Regarding benefits, 113 chairpersons (60%) considered added psychological counseling to be a direct benefit, while participant payment was considered a direct benefit by 10% (n = 19).
CONCLUSIONS: Application of the federal risk and benefit categories for pediatric research by IRB chairpersons is variable and sometimes contradicted by the available data on risks and the regulations themselves. To protect children from excessive risks while allowing appropriate research, IRB chairpersons need guidance on applying the federal risk and benefit categories and also need data on the risks children face in daily life and during routine physical or psychological tests.

Entities:  

Keywords:  Biomedical and Behavioral Research; Empirical Approach; Legal Approach

Mesh:

Year:  2004        PMID: 14747505     DOI: 10.1001/jama.291.4.476

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  JAMA        ISSN: 0098-7484            Impact factor:   56.272


  75 in total

1.  Risks of propofol sedation/anesthesia for imaging studies in pediatric research: eight years of experience in a clinical research center.

Authors:  Ruwan Kiringoda; Audrey E Thurm; Matthew E Hirschtritt; Deloris Koziol; Robert Wesley; Susan E Swedo; Naomi P O'Grady; Zenaide M N Quezado
Journal:  Arch Pediatr Adolesc Med       Date:  2010-06

2.  Frontline ethical issues in pediatric clinical research: ethical and regulatory aspects of seven current bottlenecks in pediatric clinical research.

Authors:  Wim Pinxten; Herman Nys; Kris Dierickx
Journal:  Eur J Pediatr       Date:  2010-07-29       Impact factor: 3.183

3.  Considerations in the evaluation and determination of minimal risk in pragmatic clinical trials.

Authors:  John D Lantos; David Wendler; Edward Septimus; Sarita Wahba; Rosemary Madigan; Geraldine Bliss
Journal:  Clin Trials       Date:  2015-09-15       Impact factor: 2.486

4.  Youth and Parent Appraisals of Participation in a Study of Spontaneous and Induced Pediatric Clinical Pain.

Authors:  Kara Hawley; Jeannie S Huang; Matthew Goodwin; Damaris Diaz; Virginia R de Sa; Kathryn A Birnie; Christine T Chambers; Kenneth D Craig
Journal:  Ethics Behav       Date:  2018-04-30

Review 5.  Eliminating the daily life risks standard from the definition of minimal risk.

Authors:  D B Resnik
Journal:  J Med Ethics       Date:  2005-01       Impact factor: 2.903

Review 6.  Emerging empirical evidence on the ethics of schizophrenia research.

Authors:  Laura B Dunn; Philip J Candilis; Laura Weiss Roberts
Journal:  Schizophr Bull       Date:  2005-10-19       Impact factor: 9.306

7.  Review of a mock research protocol in functional neuroimaging by Canadian research ethics boards.

Authors:  J de Champlain; J Patenaude
Journal:  J Med Ethics       Date:  2006-09       Impact factor: 2.903

Review 8.  Trust based obligations of the state and physician-researchers to patient-subjects.

Authors:  P B Miller; C Weijer
Journal:  J Med Ethics       Date:  2006-09       Impact factor: 2.903

Review 9.  Ethical issues in neonatal and pediatric clinical trials.

Authors:  Naomi Laventhal; Beth A Tarini; John Lantos
Journal:  Pediatr Clin North Am       Date:  2012-08-26       Impact factor: 3.278

10.  Environmental Factors Contributing to Wrongdoing in Medicine: A Criterion-Based Review of Studies and Cases.

Authors:  James M Dubois; Kelly Carroll; Tyler Gibb; Elena Kraus; Timothy Rubbelke; Meghan Vasher; Emily E Anderson
Journal:  Ethics Behav       Date:  2011-11-29
View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.