Literature DB >> 16810711

Reasonable risks in clinical research: a critique and a proposal for the Integrative Approach.

Alex John London1.   

Abstract

Before participants can be enrolled in a clinical trial, an institutional review board (IRB) must determine that the risks that the research poses to participants are 'reasonable.' This paper examines the two dominant frameworks for assessing research risks and argues that each approach suffers from significant shortcomings. It then considers what issues must be addressed in order to construct a framework for risk assessment that (a) is grounded in a compelling normative foundation and (b) might provide more operationally precise guidance to the deliberations of various stakeholders. The paper concludes by sketching the outlines of what is referred to as the 'Integrative Approach' to risk assessment and by highlighting some of the ways in which this approach may be more promising than current alternatives. Copyright 2006 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2006        PMID: 16810711     DOI: 10.1002/sim.2634

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Stat Med        ISSN: 0277-6715            Impact factor:   2.373


  12 in total

Review 1.  A framework for research ethics review during public emergencies.

Authors:  Catherine M Tansey; Margaret S Herridge; Ronald J Heslegrave; James V Lavery
Journal:  CMAJ       Date:  2010-06-07       Impact factor: 8.262

2.  Extending clinical equipoise to phase 1 trials involving patients: unresolved problems.

Authors:  James A Anderson; Jonathan Kimmelman
Journal:  Kennedy Inst Ethics J       Date:  2010-03

3.  Deliberate Microbial Infection Research Reveals Limitations to Current Safety Protections of Healthy Human Subjects.

Authors:  David L Evers; Carol B Fowler; Jeffrey T Mason; Rebecca K Mimnall
Journal:  Sci Eng Ethics       Date:  2014-08-24       Impact factor: 3.525

4.  Practice-Based Research Network Infrastructure Design for Institutional Review Board Risk Assessment and Generalizability of Clinical Results.

Authors:  Frederick Curro; Van P Thompson; Frederick Naftolin; Ashley Grill; Don Vena; Louis Terracio; Mariko Hashimoto; Matthew Buchholz; Andrea McKinstry; Diane Cannon; Vincent Alfano; Thalia Gooden; Anthony Vernillo; Elan Czeisler
Journal:  Ther Innov Regul Sci       Date:  2013-01       Impact factor: 1.778

5.  Setting risk thresholds in biomedical research: lessons from the debate about minimal risk.

Authors:  Annette Rid
Journal:  Monash Bioeth Rev       Date:  2014 Mar-Jun

6.  Limits on risks for healthy volunteers in biomedical research.

Authors:  David B Resnik
Journal:  Theor Med Bioeth       Date:  2012-04

Review 7.  Philosophical Foundations of Human Research Ethics.

Authors:  David B Resnik
Journal:  Perspect Biol Med       Date:  2022       Impact factor: 0.941

Review 8.  Placebo-controlled procedural trials for neurological conditions.

Authors:  Sam H Horng; Franklin G Miller
Journal:  Neurotherapeutics       Date:  2007-07       Impact factor: 7.620

9.  The Role of Intuition in Risk/Benefit Decision-Making in Human Subjects Research.

Authors:  David B Resnik
Journal:  Account Res       Date:  2016-06-13       Impact factor: 2.622

10.  Solving the challenges of large multicenter trials in anesthesia.

Authors:  S Wallace; P S Myles
Journal:  HSR Proc Intensive Care Cardiovasc Anesth       Date:  2009
View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.