Literature DB >> 17664310

Assessing research risks systematically: the net risks test.

D Wendler1, F G Miller.   

Abstract

Dual-track assessment directs research ethics committees (RECs) to assess the risks of research interventions based on the unclear distinction between therapeutic and non-therapeutic interventions. The net risks test, in contrast, relies on the clinically familiar method of assessing the risks and benefits of interventions in comparison to the available alternatives and also focuses attention of the RECs on the central challenge of protecting research participants.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2007        PMID: 17664310      PMCID: PMC2598174          DOI: 10.1136/jme.2005.014043

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Med Ethics        ISSN: 0306-6800            Impact factor:   2.903


  5 in total

Review 1.  The ethical analysis of risk.

Authors:  C Weijer
Journal:  J Law Med Ethics       Date:  2000       Impact factor: 1.718

2.  Research involving cognitively impaired adults.

Authors:  Jason H T Karlawish
Journal:  N Engl J Med       Date:  2003-04-03       Impact factor: 91.245

3.  When are research risks reasonable in relation to anticipated benefits?

Authors:  Charles Weijer; Paul B Miller
Journal:  Nat Med       Date:  2004-06       Impact factor: 53.440

4.  Uncertainty in clinical research.

Authors:  R J Levine
Journal:  Law Med Health Care       Date:  1988 Fall-Winter

5.  Incidental findings on brain magnetic resonance imaging from 1000 asymptomatic volunteers.

Authors:  G L Katzman; A P Dagher; N J Patronas
Journal:  JAMA       Date:  1999-07-07       Impact factor: 56.272

  5 in total
  15 in total

1.  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

2.  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

3.  Refuting the net risks test: a response to Wendler and Miller's "Assessing research risks systematically".

Authors:  C Weijer; P B Miller
Journal:  J Med Ethics       Date:  2007-08       Impact factor: 2.903

4.  The myth of equipoise in phase 1 clinical trials.

Authors:  Adil E Shamoo
Journal:  Medscape J Med       Date:  2008-11-05

5.  Ethics of clinical research with mentally ill persons.

Authors:  Hanfried Helmchen
Journal:  Eur Arch Psychiatry Clin Neurosci       Date:  2012-01-03       Impact factor: 5.270

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

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

7.  Ethical assessment of pediatric research protocols.

Authors:  Robert D Truog
Journal:  Intensive Care Med       Date:  2007-11-03       Impact factor: 17.440

8.  Ethical and legal issues in pain research in cognitively impaired older adults.

Authors:  Todd B Monroe; Keela A Herr; Lorraine C Mion; Ronald L Cowan
Journal:  Int J Nurs Stud       Date:  2012-12-14       Impact factor: 5.837

9.  Human subjects protections in biomedical enhancement research: assessing risk and benefit and obtaining informed consent.

Authors:  Maxwell J Mehlman; Jessica W Berg
Journal:  J Law Med Ethics       Date:  2008       Impact factor: 1.718

10.  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

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.