Literature DB >> 16166597

Risk in emergency research using a waiver of/exception from consent: implications of a structured approach for institutional review board review.

Andrew D McRae1, Stacy Ackroyd-Stolarz, Charles Weijer.   

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: To apply component analysis, a structured approach to the ethical analysis of risks and potential benefits in research, to published emergency research using a waiver of/exception from informed consent. The hypothesis was that component analysis could be used with a high degree of interrater reliability, and that the vast majority of emergency research would comply with a minimal-risk threshold.
METHODS: A Medline search and manual search were done to identify studies using a waiver of/exception from informed consent published between July 1996 and December 2000. A review panel of physicians and bioethicists independently classified nontherapeutic procedures in each study as minimal risk, probably minimal risk, or probably more than minimal risk.
RESULTS: Seventy studies using a waiver of/exception from informed consent were identified. A majority of reviewers classified nontherapeutic procedures in 62 studies (88.6%) as minimal risk. Reviewers classified nontherapeutic procedures in six studies (8.6%) as minimal risk or probably minimal risk. In two studies (2.9%), nontherapeutic procedures were classified as probably more than minimal risk. The intraclass correlation coefficient was 0.89 (95% CI = 0.85 to 0.93), indicating very high interrater reliability.
CONCLUSIONS: Component analysis can be used with high reliability to review emergency research and may improve the consistency of institutional review board review of emergency research. The vast majority of published emergency research performed using a waiver of/exception from consent complies with a properly-applied minimal-risk threshold. A minimal-risk threshold for nontherapeutic procedures protects subjects better than current U.S. regulations while permitting important emergency research to continue.

Mesh:

Year:  2005        PMID: 16166597     DOI: 10.1197/j.aem.2005.04.005

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Acad Emerg Med        ISSN: 1069-6563            Impact factor:   3.451


  5 in total

1.  Evaluating benefits and harms in intensive care research.

Authors:  Charles Weijer; Paul B Miller
Journal:  Intensive Care Med       Date:  2007-08-10       Impact factor: 17.440

2.  Patients' perceptions of research in emergency settings: a study of survivors of sudden cardiac death.

Authors:  Neal W Dickert; Nancy E Kass
Journal:  Soc Sci Med       Date:  2008-11-10       Impact factor: 4.634

3.  Research in critically ill patients: standards of informed consent.

Authors:  Catherine Chenaud; Paolo Merlani; Bara Ricou
Journal:  Crit Care       Date:  2007       Impact factor: 9.097

4.  Informed consent in paediatric critical care research--a South African perspective.

Authors:  Brenda M Morrow; Andrew C Argent; Sharon Kling
Journal:  BMC Med Ethics       Date:  2015-09-09       Impact factor: 2.652

Review 5.  Exceptions to the rule of informed consent for research with an intervention.

Authors:  Susanne Rebers; Neil K Aaronson; Flora E van Leeuwen; Marjanka K Schmidt
Journal:  BMC Med Ethics       Date:  2016-02-06       Impact factor: 2.652

  5 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.