Literature DB >> 25530226

Were There "Additional Foreseeable Risks" in the SUPPORT Study? Lessons Not Learned from the ARDSnet Clinical Trials.

Henry J Silverman, Didier Dreyfuss.   

Abstract

Even though the interventions were adapted from standard clinical practice, the way they were provided meant that the care given infants in the study was distinctly different from standard care, with different risk profiles. Parents should have been informed about those differences.

Entities:  

Mesh：

Substances：

Year:  2014        PMID： 25530226     DOI： 10.1002/hast.403

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Hastings Cent Rep        ISSN： 0093-0334            Impact factor:   2.683


  3 in total

1.  The ethics and regulatory landscape of including vulnerable populations in pragmatic clinical trials.

Authors:  Mary Jane Welch; Rachel Lally; Jennifer E Miller; Stephanie Pittman; Lynda Brodsky; Arthur L Caplan; Gina Uhlenbrauck; Darcy M Louzao; James H Fischer; Benjamin Wilfond
Journal:  Clin Trials       Date:  2015-09-15       Impact factor: 2.486

2.  Classic cases revisited - Oxygen in court and the problem of therapeutic illusion.

Authors:  Piotr Szawarski
Journal:  J Intensive Care Soc       Date:  2017-01-03

3.  Comparative effectiveness research: what to do when experts disagree about risks.

Authors:  Reidar K Lie; Francis K L Chan; Christine Grady; Vincent H Ng; David Wendler
Journal:  BMC Med Ethics       Date:  2017-06-19       Impact factor: 2.652
  3 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.