系统评估研究风险：净风险测试
Assessing research risks systematically: the net risks test.
作者信息
Wendler D, Miller F G
机构信息
Department of Clinical Bioethics, The NIH Clinical Center, National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, MD, USA.
出版信息
J Med Ethics. 2007 Aug;33(8):481-6. doi: 10.1136/jme.2005.014043.
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.
摘要
双轨评估指导研究伦理委员会（RECs）基于治疗性干预和非治疗性干预之间不明确的区分来评估研究干预措施的风险。相比之下，净风险测试依赖于临床上常用的评估干预措施与现有替代方案相比的风险和益处的方法，并且还将伦理委员会的注意力集中在保护研究参与者这一核心挑战上。
相似文献
1
Assessing research risks systematically: the net risks test.系统评估研究风险：净风险测试
J Med Ethics. 2007 Aug;33(8):481-6. doi: 10.1136/jme.2005.014043.
2
Refuting the net risks test: a response to Wendler and Miller's "Assessing research risks systematically".驳净风险测试：对温德勒和米勒《系统评估研究风险》的回应
J Med Ethics. 2007 Aug;33(8):487-90. doi: 10.1136/jme.2006.016444.
3
Imagination and attention: protecting participants in psychopharmacological research.想象力与注意力：保护精神药理学研究中的参与者
Psychopharmacology (Berl). 2003 Dec;171(1):56-7. doi: 10.1007/s00213-003-1631-7. Epub 2003 Nov 4.
4
When "minimal risk" research yields clinically-significant data, maybe the risks aren't so minimal.当“最小风险”研究产生具有临床意义的数据时，也许这些风险并非那么微小。
Am J Bioeth. 2004 Spring;4(2):W32-6. doi: 10.1162/152651604323097970.
5
Is risky pediatric research without prospect of direct benefit ever justified?没有直接受益前景的高风险儿科研究是否有正当理由？
Am J Bioeth. 2007 Mar;7(3):12-5. doi: 10.1080/15265160601171606.
6
Clinical research with healthy volunteers: an ethical framework.健康志愿者的临床研究：一个伦理框架。
J Investig Med. 2003 Feb;51 Suppl 1:S2-5.
7
Research ethics.研究伦理。
West Indian Med J. 1995 Dec;44(4):115-8.
8
Eschewing definitions of the therapeutic misconception: a family resemblance analysis.避开治疗性误解的定义：一种家族相似性分析
J Med Philos. 2011 Jun;36(3):296-320. doi: 10.1093/jmp/jhr014. Epub 2011 May 23.
9
Current status of the research ethics committees in Thailand.泰国研究伦理委员会的现状。
J Med Assoc Thai. 2011 Aug;94(8):1013-8.
10
Third-party risks in research: should IRBs address them?研究中的第三方风险：机构审查委员会应处理这些风险吗？
IRB. 2007 May-Jun;29(3):1-5.
引用本文的文献
1
Descriptions of risks and benefits of HIV vaccine trials in low-and middle-income countries (LMICs): an integrative review.低收入和中等收入国家（LMICs）中HIV疫苗试验的风险与益处描述：一项综合综述
BMC Med Ethics. 2025 Jul 3;26(1):75. doi: 10.1186/s12910-025-01235-z.
2
Proportion of patients in phase 2 oncology trials receiving treatments that are ultimately approved.在2期肿瘤学试验中接受最终获批治疗的患者比例。
J Natl Cancer Inst. 2025 May 1;117(5):1056-1063. doi: 10.1093/jnci/djaf013.
3
The Normative Power of Consent and Limits on Research Risks.同意的规范力与研究风险的限制
Ethical Theory Moral Pract. 2024;27(4):555-570. doi: 10.1007/s10677-024-10441-4. Epub 2024 May 22.
4
Pragmatic Clinical Trials: The Ethics of Conducting Research in the Real World.实用临床试验：在现实世界中开展研究的伦理问题。
Mayo Clin Proc. 2024 Sep;99(9):1369-1373. doi: 10.1016/j.mayocp.2024.05.001. Epub 2024 Aug 5.
5
A leap of faith: building the trust in human biobanks.信念的飞跃：建立对人类生物样本库的信任。
Front Genet. 2023 Oct 19;14:1261623. doi: 10.3389/fgene.2023.1261623. eCollection 2023.
6
Reevaluating the Ethical Issues in Porcine-to-Human Heart Xenotransplantation.重新评估猪心异种移植中的伦理问题。
Hastings Cent Rep. 2022 Sep;52(5):32-42. doi: 10.1002/hast.1419.
7
Risk and benefit for umbrella trials in oncology: a systematic review and meta-analysis.肿瘤学中伞式试验的风险与获益：系统评价和荟萃分析。
BMC Med. 2022 Jul 8;20(1):219. doi: 10.1186/s12916-022-02420-2.
8
Do the Potential Medical Benefits of Phase 1 Pediatric Oncology Trials Justify the Risks? Views of the United States Public.一期儿科肿瘤试验的潜在医学益处是否能证明其风险合理？美国公众的观点。
J Pediatr. 2021 Nov;238:249-258.e3. doi: 10.1016/j.jpeds.2021.06.009. Epub 2021 Jun 16.
9
Challenge Trials: What Are the Ethical Problems?挑战试验：存在哪些伦理问题？
J Med Philos. 2021 Jan 25;46(1):137-145. doi: 10.1093/jmp/jhaa028.
10
Risk Assessment of Medical Study Procedures in the Documents Submitted to a Research Ethics Committee.向研究伦理委员会提交的医学研究文件中的研究程序风险评估。
J Empir Res Hum Res Ethics. 2020 Dec;15(5):396-406. doi: 10.1177/1556264620903563. Epub 2020 Feb 8.
本文引用的文献
1
When are research risks reasonable in relation to anticipated benefits?与预期收益相比，研究风险何时是合理的？
Nat Med. 2004 Jun;10(6):570-3. doi: 10.1038/nm0604-570.
2
Research involving cognitively impaired adults.涉及认知受损成年人的研究。
N Engl J Med. 2003 Apr 3;348(14):1389-92. doi: 10.1056/NEJMsb030172.
3
The ethical analysis of risk.风险的伦理分析
J Law Med Ethics. 2000 Winter;28(4):344-61. doi: 10.1111/j.1748-720x.2000.tb00686.x.
4
Incidental findings on brain magnetic resonance imaging from 1000 asymptomatic volunteers.1000名无症状志愿者脑部磁共振成像的偶然发现。
JAMA. 1999 Jul 7;282(1):36-9. doi: 10.1001/jama.282.1.36.
5
Uncertainty in clinical research.临床研究中的不确定性。
Law Med Health Care. 1988 Fall-Winter;16(3-4):174-82. doi: 10.1111/j.1748-720x.1988.tb01943.x.
Zotero 插件