Suppr超能文献

补充剂研究中安慰剂的使用——维生素 D 研究说明了一个伦理困境。

Use of Placebo in Supplementation Studies-Vitamin D Research Illustrates an Ethical Quandary.

机构信息

The George Washington School of Medicine and Health Sciences, Washington, DC 20052, USA.

The University of Chicago Pritzker School of Medicine, Chicago, IL 60637, USA.

出版信息

Nutrients. 2018 Mar 13;10(3):347. doi: 10.3390/nu10030347.

Abstract

History has shown that without explicit and enforced guidelines, even well-intentioned researchers can fail to adequately examine the ethical pros and cons of study design choices. One area in which consensus does not yet exist is the use of placebo groups in vitamin supplementation studies. As a prime example, we focus on vitamin D research. We aim to provide an overview of the ethical issues in placebo-controlled studies and guide future discussion about the ethical use of placebo groups. Research in the field of vitamin D shows variation in how placebo groups are used. We outline four types of control groups in use: active-control, placebo-control with restrictions on supplementation, placebo-control without supplementation restrictions, and placebo-control with rescue repletion therapy. The first two types highlight discrete ethical issues: active-control trials limit the ability to detect a difference; placebo-control trials that restrict supplementation potentially place subjects at risk of undue harm. The final two, placebo-control without supplementation restrictions or with rescue repletion therapy, offer potential solutions to these ethical challenges. Building on this, guidelines should be established and enforced on the use of placebo in supplementation studies. Furthermore, the field of vitamin D research has the potential to set an example worthy of emulation.

摘要

历史表明,即使是出于善意的研究人员,如果没有明确和强制执行的指导方针,也可能无法充分考虑研究设计选择的伦理利弊。在共识尚未达成的一个领域是在维生素补充研究中使用安慰剂组。作为一个主要的例子,我们专注于维生素 D 研究。我们旨在提供一个关于安慰剂对照研究中的伦理问题的概述,并指导未来关于安慰剂组的伦理使用的讨论。维生素 D 领域的研究表明,安慰剂组的使用存在差异。我们概述了四种正在使用的对照组:活性对照组、有补充限制的安慰剂对照组、无补充限制的安慰剂对照组和有救援补充治疗的安慰剂对照组。前两种类型突出了离散的伦理问题:活性对照组试验限制了检测差异的能力;限制补充的安慰剂对照试验可能使受试者面临不必要的伤害风险。最后两种,无补充限制或有救援补充治疗的安慰剂对照组,为这些伦理挑战提供了潜在的解决方案。在此基础上,应制定并执行关于补充研究中使用安慰剂的准则。此外,维生素 D 研究领域有可能树立一个值得效仿的榜样。

相似文献

3
A rational approach to vitamin D supplementation.一种合理的维生素D补充方法。
Nutrition. 2012 Nov-Dec;28(11-12):1204-5. doi: 10.1016/j.nut.2012.08.002.
7
Vitamin D supplementation.维生素D补充剂。
Pract Neurol. 2018 Feb;18(1):35-42. doi: 10.1136/practneurol-2017-001720. Epub 2017 Sep 25.
8
Placebos in clinical practice and research.临床实践与研究中的安慰剂
J Med Ethics. 1996 Jun;22(3):140-6. doi: 10.1136/jme.22.3.140.

本文引用的文献

8
Effects of vitamin D supplementation in older African American women.维生素 D 补充对老年非裔美国女性的影响。
J Clin Endocrinol Metab. 2013 Mar;98(3):1137-46. doi: 10.1210/jc.2012-3106. Epub 2013 Feb 5.
9
The effect of vitamin D supplementation on serum 25(OH)D in thin and obese women.维生素 D 补充对瘦和肥胖女性血清 25(OH)D 的影响。
J Steroid Biochem Mol Biol. 2013 Jul;136:195-200. doi: 10.1016/j.jsbmb.2012.12.003. Epub 2012 Dec 11.

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