Literature DB >> 15186687

When "minimal risk" research yields clinically-significant data, maybe the risks aren't so minimal.

Helen M Sharp1, Robert D Orr.   

Abstract

Surveys and routine clinical procedures applied in research protocols are typically considered only minimally risky to participants. The apparent benign nature of "minimal risk" tasks increases the chance that investigators and Institutional Review Boards (IRBs) will overlook the probability that clinical tools will identify signs, symptoms, or definitive test results that are clinically-relevant to subjects' welfare. "Minimal risk" procedures may also pose a particular hazard to participants in clinical research by increasing the therapeutic misconception because the tasks mimic clinical care and are often conducted in clinical settings. Investigators should anticipate which measures could yield clinically-important findings and should describe explicit plans for data monitoring, disclosure, and follow-up. Protocols that include reliable and valid clinical measures should prompt a more detailed risk assessment by the IRB, even when the tasks meet the regulatory criteria for minimal physical, psychological, or emotional risk.

Entities:  

Keywords:  Biomedical and Behavioral Research

Mesh:

Year:  2004        PMID: 15186687     DOI: 10.1162/152651604323097970

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Am J Bioeth        ISSN: 1526-5161            Impact factor:   11.229


  6 in total

Review 1.  To tell or not to tell? A systematic review of ethical reflections on incidental findings arising in genetics contexts.

Authors:  Gabrielle M Christenhusz; Koenraad Devriendt; Kris Dierickx
Journal:  Eur J Hum Genet       Date:  2012-06-27       Impact factor: 4.246

2.  The concept of risk and responsible conduct of research.

Authors:  Eugenijus Gefenas
Journal:  Sci Eng Ethics       Date:  2006-01       Impact factor: 3.525

Review 3.  Incidental findings from clinical genome-wide sequencing: a review.

Authors:  Z Lohn; S Adam; P H Birch; J M Friedman
Journal:  J Genet Couns       Date:  2013-05-26       Impact factor: 2.537

4.  Secondary variants--in defense of a more fitting term in the incidental findings debate.

Authors:  Gabrielle M Christenhusz; Koenraad Devriendt; Kris Dierickx
Journal:  Eur J Hum Genet       Date:  2013-05-22       Impact factor: 4.246

5.  'Information is information': a public perspective on incidental findings in clinical and research genome-based testing.

Authors:  S Daack-Hirsch; M Driessnack; A Hanish; V A Johnson; L L Shah; C M Simon; J K Williams
Journal:  Clin Genet       Date:  2013-05-03       Impact factor: 4.438

Review 6.  Managing incidental findings in human subjects research: analysis and recommendations.

Authors:  Susan M Wolf; Frances P Lawrenz; Charles A Nelson; Jeffrey P Kahn; Mildred K Cho; Ellen Wright Clayton; Joel G Fletcher; Michael K Georgieff; Dale Hammerschmidt; Kathy Hudson; Judy Illes; Vivek Kapur; Moira A Keane; Barbara A Koenig; Bonnie S Leroy; Elizabeth G McFarland; Jordan Paradise; Lisa S Parker; Sharon F Terry; Brian Van Ness; Benjamin S Wilfond
Journal:  J Law Med Ethics       Date:  2008       Impact factor: 1.718

  6 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.