• 文献检索
  • 文档翻译
  • 深度研究
  • 学术资讯
  • Suppr Zotero 插件Zotero 插件
  • 邀请有礼
  • 套餐&价格
  • 历史记录
应用&插件
Suppr Zotero 插件Zotero 插件浏览器插件Mac 客户端Windows 客户端微信小程序
定价
高级版会员购买积分包购买API积分包
服务
文献检索文档翻译深度研究API 文档MCP 服务
关于我们
关于 Suppr公司介绍联系我们用户协议隐私条款
关注我们

Suppr 超能文献

核心技术专利:CN118964589B侵权必究
粤ICP备2023148730 号-1Suppr @ 2026

文献检索

告别复杂PubMed语法,用中文像聊天一样搜索,搜遍4000万医学文献。AI智能推荐,让科研检索更轻松。

立即免费搜索

文件翻译

保留排版,准确专业,支持PDF/Word/PPT等文件格式,支持 12+语言互译。

免费翻译文档

深度研究

AI帮你快速写综述,25分钟生成高质量综述,智能提取关键信息,辅助科研写作。

立即免费体验

相似文献

1
Ethical issues in pragmatic trials of "standard-of-care" interventions in learning health care systems.学习型医疗保健系统中“标准治疗”干预措施的实用试验中的伦理问题。
Learn Health Syst. 2018 Jan 10;2(1):e10045. doi: 10.1002/lrh2.10045. eCollection 2018 Jan.
2
The future of Cochrane Neonatal.考克兰新生儿协作网的未来。
Early Hum Dev. 2020 Nov;150:105191. doi: 10.1016/j.earlhumdev.2020.105191. Epub 2020 Sep 12.
3
Ethical complexities in standard of care randomized trials: A case study of morning versus nighttime dosing of blood pressure drugs.标准治疗随机试验中的伦理复杂性:以血压药物晨服与夜服为例的案例研究。
Clin Trials. 2015 Dec;12(6):557-63. doi: 10.1177/1740774515607213. Epub 2015 Sep 22.
4
The ethical challenges raised in the design and conduct of pragmatic trials: an interview study with key stakeholders.实用临床试验设计和实施中引发的伦理挑战:关键利益攸关方的访谈研究。
Trials. 2019 Dec 23;20(1):765. doi: 10.1186/s13063-019-3899-x.
5
Developing a framework for the ethical design and conduct of pragmatic trials in healthcare: a mixed methods research protocol.制定医疗保健中实用临床试验的伦理设计和实施框架:混合方法研究方案。
Trials. 2018 Sep 27;19(1):525. doi: 10.1186/s13063-018-2895-x.
6
Research versus practice: The dilemmas of research ethics in the era of learning health-care systems.研究与实践:学习型医疗保健系统时代的研究伦理困境。
Bioethics. 2019 Jun;33(5):617-624. doi: 10.1111/bioe.12571. Epub 2019 Mar 18.
7
The ethical justification for inclusion of neonates in pragmatic randomized clinical trials for emergency newborn care.将新生儿纳入紧急新生儿护理实用随机临床试验的伦理理由。
BMC Pediatr. 2019 Jul 2;19(1):218. doi: 10.1186/s12887-019-1600-x.
8
A framework for analysis of research risks and benefits to participants in standard of care pragmatic clinical trials.一项针对标准治疗实用临床试验中参与者研究风险与益处的分析框架。
Clin Trials. 2016 Dec;13(6):605-611. doi: 10.1177/1740774516656945. Epub 2016 Jun 30.
9
Learning health care systems: Highly needed but challenging.学习型医疗保健系统:急需但具有挑战性。
Learn Health Syst. 2020 Jan 13;4(3):e10211. doi: 10.1002/lrh2.10211. eCollection 2020 Jul.
10
Folic acid supplementation and malaria susceptibility and severity among people taking antifolate antimalarial drugs in endemic areas.在流行地区,服用抗叶酸抗疟药物的人群中,叶酸补充剂与疟疾易感性和严重程度的关系。
Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2022 Feb 1;2(2022):CD014217. doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD014217.

引用本文的文献

1
Are pragmatism and ethical protections in clinical trials a zero-sum game?临床试验中的实用主义与伦理保护是否是一场零和博弈?
Clin Trials. 2025 Feb;22(1):109-115. doi: 10.1177/17407745241284798. Epub 2024 Oct 15.
2
The ethical challenges raised in the design and conduct of pragmatic trials: an interview study with key stakeholders.实用临床试验设计和实施中引发的伦理挑战:关键利益攸关方的访谈研究。
Trials. 2019 Dec 23;20(1):765. doi: 10.1186/s13063-019-3899-x.

本文引用的文献

1
Clinical Trials Without Consent?未经同意的临床试验?
Perspect Biol Med. 2016;59(1):132-46. doi: 10.1353/pbm.2016.0023.
2
A framework for analysis of research risks and benefits to participants in standard of care pragmatic clinical trials.一项针对标准治疗实用临床试验中参与者研究风险与益处的分析框架。
Clin Trials. 2016 Dec;13(6):605-611. doi: 10.1177/1740774516656945. Epub 2016 Jun 30.
3
Waivers and Alterations to Consent in Pragmatic Clinical Trials: Respecting the Principle of Respect for Persons.实用临床试验中同意书的豁免与变更:尊重尊重人的原则
IRB. 2016 Jan-Feb;38(1):1-5.
4
Personal Care in Learning Health Care Systems.学习型医疗保健系统中的个人护理。
Kennedy Inst Ethics J. 2015 Dec;25(4):419-35. doi: 10.1353/ken.2015.0024.
5
Ethical complexities in standard of care randomized trials: A case study of morning versus nighttime dosing of blood pressure drugs.标准治疗随机试验中的伦理复杂性:以血压药物晨服与夜服为例的案例研究。
Clin Trials. 2015 Dec;12(6):557-63. doi: 10.1177/1740774515607213. Epub 2015 Sep 22.
6
The PRECIS-2 tool: designing trials that are fit for purpose.PRECIS-2工具:设计符合目的的试验。
BMJ. 2015 May 8;350:h2147. doi: 10.1136/bmj.h2147.
7
Varieties of standard-of-care treatment randomized trials: ethical implications.标准护理治疗随机试验的种类:伦理意义
JAMA. 2015 Mar 3;313(9):895-6. doi: 10.1001/jama.2014.18528.
8
SUPPORT and the Ethics of Study Implementation: Lessons for Comparative Effectiveness Research from the Trial of Oxygen Therapy for Premature Babies.支持与研究实施的伦理:早产儿氧疗试验对比较效果研究的启示
Hastings Cent Rep. 2015 Jan-Feb;45(1):30-40. doi: 10.1002/hast.407. Epub 2014 Dec 19.
9
OHRP and standard-of-care research.人类研究保护办公室与标准护理研究。
N Engl J Med. 2014 Nov 27;371(22):2125-6. doi: 10.1056/NEJMe1413296. Epub 2014 Nov 12.
10
The concept of risk in comparative-effectiveness research.比较效果研究中的风险概念。
N Engl J Med. 2014 Nov 27;371(22):2129-30. doi: 10.1056/NEJMhle1413301. Epub 2014 Nov 12.

学习型医疗保健系统中“标准治疗”干预措施的实用试验中的伦理问题。

Ethical issues in pragmatic trials of "standard-of-care" interventions in learning health care systems.

作者信息

Kim Scott Y H

机构信息

Department of Bioethics Clinical Center, National Institutes of Health Bethesda Maryland.

出版信息

Learn Health Syst. 2018 Jan 10;2(1):e10045. doi: 10.1002/lrh2.10045. eCollection 2018 Jan.

DOI:10.1002/lrh2.10045
PMID:31245574
原文链接:https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC6508815/
Abstract

INTRODUCTION

Learning health care systems (LHS) hold the promise of improving medical care by systematically and continuously integrating the delivery of medical services with clinical research. One important type of integration would involve embedding trials that compare interventions that are already commonly in use (as "accepted" or "standard of care") into the clinical setting-trials that could cost-effectively improve care. But the traditional requirement of informed consent for clinical trials stands in tension with the conduct of such trials.

METHOD

Narrative analysis.

RESULTS

Although some have suggested that the idea of LHS makes the distinction between research and ordinary clinical care obsolete, the distinction remains ethically relevant even when it comes to randomized clinical trials (RCTs) that compare standard-of-care interventions. This paper presents an ethical framework for analyzing standard-of-care RCTs in resolving the tension between such trials and traditional requirements of research ethics.

CONCLUSION

It is important not to treat all standard-of-care RCTs as a monolithic category of special ethical status. Close attention to ethical issues in specific standard-of-care RCTs is crucial if the LHS movement is to avoid ethical lapses that could be counterproductive to its long term vision.

摘要

引言

学习型医疗保健系统有望通过系统且持续地将医疗服务的提供与临床研究相结合来改善医疗护理。一种重要的整合类型将涉及把比较已普遍使用的干预措施(作为“公认的”或“护理标准”)的试验嵌入临床环境中——这些试验能够以具有成本效益的方式改善护理。但临床试验的传统知情同意要求与这类试验的开展存在矛盾。

方法

叙事分析。

结果

尽管有人认为学习型医疗保健系统的理念使研究与普通临床护理之间的区别过时了,但即便对于比较护理标准干预措施的随机临床试验(RCT)而言,这种区别在伦理上仍然具有相关性。本文提出了一个伦理框架,用于分析护理标准RCT,以解决此类试验与传统研究伦理要求之间的矛盾。

结论

重要的是不要将所有护理标准RCT都视为具有特殊伦理地位的单一类别。如果学习型医疗保健系统运动要避免出现可能对其长期愿景产生适得其反效果的伦理失误,密切关注特定护理标准RCT中的伦理问题至关重要。