Suppr超能文献

机构审查委员会的困境:负责安全监测但却无法掌控局面。

An Institutional Review Board dilemma: responsible for safety monitoring but not in control.

作者信息

DeMets David L, Fost Norman, Powers Madison

机构信息

Biostatistics and Medical Informatics, University of Wisconsin, 600 Highland Avenue, Box 4675, K6/446 CSC, Madison, WI 53792-4675, USA.

出版信息

Clin Trials. 2006;3(2):142-8. doi: 10.1191/1740774506cn137oa.

Abstract

Clinical trials have become a major research tool to evaluate new medical interventions. Most trials require some level of data monitoring for quality control and many trials require special monitoring for participant safety. For national multicenter trials, independent data monitoring committees have become the standard for monitoring for evidence of participant benefit or harm in trials with irreversible outcomes such as death or serious morbidity. The Institutional Review Board (IRB) is held responsible for monitoring local trials. Often local institutions do not have an infrastructure in place to meet this responsibility, and therefore local IRBs cannot fulfill this obligation. In addition, IRBs are currently inundated with individual safety reports from local and multi-institutional trials which may appear to provide some level of safety monitoring, but in fact gives a false sense of security. We propose the establishment of institutional data monitoring committees and appropriate informatics infrastructure to monitor local trials.

摘要

临床试验已成为评估新医学干预措施的主要研究工具。大多数试验需要一定程度的数据监测以进行质量控制,许多试验还需要对参与者安全进行特殊监测。对于国家多中心试验,独立数据监测委员会已成为监测具有不可逆转结果(如死亡或严重发病)的试验中参与者受益或伤害证据的标准。机构审查委员会(IRB)负责监测本地试验。通常,当地机构没有适当的基础设施来履行这一职责,因此当地IRB无法履行这一义务。此外,IRB目前被来自本地和多机构试验的个体安全报告所淹没,这些报告看似提供了一定程度的安全监测,但实际上给人一种虚假的安全感。我们建议建立机构数据监测委员会和适当的信息学基础设施来监测本地试验。

文献AI研究员

20分钟写一篇综述,助力文献阅读效率提升50倍。

立即体验

用中文搜PubMed

大模型驱动的PubMed中文搜索引擎

马上搜索

文档翻译

学术文献翻译模型,支持多种主流文档格式。

立即体验