Protecting the public from the adverse effects of confused research ethics.
作者信息
Chalmers Iain, Glasziou Paul
机构信息
Centre for Evidence-Based Medicine, Department of Primary Care, University of Oxford, Oxford OX2 6GG, UK.
Institute for Evidence-Based Healthcare, Faculty of Health Sciences and Medicine, Bond University, Gold Coast QLD 4229, Australia.
出版信息
J R Soc Med. 2021 Nov;114(11):507-512. doi: 10.1177/01410768211051720. Epub 2021 Oct 26.
Abstract
摘要
相似文献
1
Protecting the public from the adverse effects of confused research ethics.保护公众免受混乱的研究伦理的不利影响。
J R Soc Med. 2021 Nov;114(11):507-512. doi: 10.1177/01410768211051720. Epub 2021 Oct 26.
2
New European rules regarding the approval of clinical trials, the role of ethics committees and the protection of subjects.关于临床试验批准、伦理委员会的作用以及受试者保护的新欧洲规则。
Arch Immunol Ther Exp (Warsz). 2012 Dec;60(6):405-14. doi: 10.1007/s00005-012-0200-3. Epub 2012 Oct 13.
3
The challenged but indispensable role of ethical committees for human clinical experimentation.
Cortex. 2015 Oct;71:420-2. doi: 10.1016/j.cortex.2015.04.019. Epub 2015 May 8.
4
International codes of research ethics: current controversies and the future.国际研究伦理准则：当前争议与未来发展
Indiana Law Rev. 2002;35(2):557-67.
5
Dermatology: obtaining a patient consent in clinical trials.
Br J Nurs. 2006;15(9):500-1. doi: 10.12968/bjon.2006.15.9.21090.
6
Improving the decision processes of institutional review boards.改进机构审查委员会的决策流程。
JAMA. 2004 Apr 14;291(14):1698; author reply 1698-9. doi: 10.1001/jama.291.14.1698-b.
7
Protection of research subjects.
N Engl J Med. 2003 Jul 10;349(2):188-92; author reply 188-92.
8
Lessons from the ARDS network ventilator trial design controversy.
Respir Care Clin N Am. 2004 Sep;10(3):317-28, vi. doi: 10.1016/j.rcc.2004.04.005.
9
Gene therapy trials in the UK: is haemophilia a suitable 'model'?英国的基因治疗试验：血友病是合适的“模型”吗？
Clin Med (Lond). 2004 Jan-Feb;4(1):54-6. doi: 10.7861/clinmedicine.4-1-54.
10
Research in oncology: legal and ethical aspects.
Clin Transl Oncol. 2008 Jul;10(7):383-4. doi: 10.1007/s12094-008-0218-5.
引用本文的文献
1
Blood Pressure Targets for Adults with Vasodilatory Shock - An Individual Patient Data Meta-Analysis.血管舒张性休克成人患者的血压目标——一项个体患者数据荟萃分析
NEJM Evid. 2025 Jan;4(1):EVIDoa2400359. doi: 10.1056/EVIDoa2400359. Epub 2024 Nov 18.
2
Giving and taking: ethical treatment assignment in controlled trials.给予和获取：对照试验中的伦理治疗分配。
J R Soc Med. 2021 Nov;114(11):525-530. doi: 10.1177/01410768211049972.
3
If in doubt, think patient.如有疑问，以患者为优先考虑。
J R Soc Med. 2021 Nov;114(11):497. doi: 10.1177/01410768211059459.
4
Improving research ethics review and governance can improve human health.改善研究伦理审查与管理可促进人类健康。
J R Soc Med. 2021 Dec;114(12):556-562. doi: 10.1177/01410768211051711. Epub 2021 Nov 11.
本文引用的文献
1
Improving research ethics review and governance can improve human health.改善研究伦理审查与管理可促进人类健康。
J R Soc Med. 2021 Dec;114(12):556-562. doi: 10.1177/01410768211051711. Epub 2021 Nov 11.
2
'The ethics approval took 20 months on a trial which was meant to help terminally ill cancer patients. In the end we had to send the funding back': a survey of views on human research ethics reviews.“一项旨在帮助晚期癌症患者的试验，伦理审批耗时20个月。最后我们不得不把资金退回”：关于人体研究伦理审查的观点调查
J Med Ethics. 2021 Jan 11. doi: 10.1136/medethics-2020-106785.
3
The Magic of Randomization versus the Myth of Real-World Evidence.随机化的魔力与真实世界证据的神话
N Engl J Med. 2020 Feb 13;382(7):674-678. doi: 10.1056/NEJMsb1901642.
4
Exempting low-risk health and medical research from ethics reviews: comparing Australia, the United Kingdom, the United States and the Netherlands.免除低风险健康和医学研究的伦理审查：比较澳大利亚、英国、美国和荷兰。
Health Res Policy Syst. 2020 Jan 28;18(1):11. doi: 10.1186/s12961-019-0520-4.
5
When IRBs Say No to Participating in Research about Single IRBs.当机构审查委员会拒绝参与关于单一机构审查委员会的研究时。
Ethics Hum Res. 2020 Jan;42(1):36-40. doi: 10.1002/eahr.500041.
6
Do protocols for new randomised trials take previous similar trials into account? Cohort study of contemporary trial protocols.新随机试验方案是否考虑了先前类似的试验？当代试验方案的队列研究。
BMJ Open. 2019 Nov 10;9(11):e026661. doi: 10.1136/bmjopen-2018-026661.
7
Personalised Medicine Using N-of-1 Trials: Overcoming Barriers to Delivery.使用单病例试验的个性化医疗：克服实施障碍。
Healthcare (Basel). 2019 Nov 5;7(4):134. doi: 10.3390/healthcare7040134.
8
Objecting to experiments that compare two unobjectionable policies or treatments.反对比较两种无可非议的政策或治疗方法的实验。
Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2019 May 28;116(22):10723-10728. doi: 10.1073/pnas.1820701116. Epub 2019 May 9.
9
Research approvals iceberg: how a 'low-key' study in England needed 89 professionals to approve it and how we can do better.研究审批的冰山：在英格兰，一项“低调”的研究为何需要 89 名专业人员来批准，以及我们如何才能做得更好。
BMC Med Ethics. 2019 Jan 25;20(1):7. doi: 10.1186/s12910-018-0339-5.
10
Assessment of research waste part 1: an exemplar from examining study design, surrogate and clinical endpoints in studies of calcium intake and vitamin D supplementation.评估研究浪费 第 1 部分：以钙摄入量和维生素 D 补充研究中检查研究设计、替代终点和临床终点为例。
BMC Med Res Methodol. 2018 Oct 10;18(1):103. doi: 10.1186/s12874-018-0556-0.
Zotero 插件