Suppr超能文献

在紧急情况下开展人体受试者研究的监管挑战:国家创伤研究行动计划(NTRAP)范围界定审查

Regulatory challenges in conducting human subjects research in emergency settings: the National Trauma Research Action Plan (NTRAP) scoping review.

作者信息

Villarreal Cynthia Lizette, Price Michelle A, Moreno Ashley N, Zenteno Alfonso, Saenz Christine, Toppo Alexander, Herrera-Escobar Juan Pablo, Sims Carrie A, Bulger Eileen M

机构信息

Coalition for National Trauma Research, San Antonio, Texas, USA.

Center for Surgery and Public Health, Brigham and Women's Hospital, Boston, Massachusetts, USA.

出版信息

Trauma Surg Acute Care Open. 2023 Mar 2;8(1):e001044. doi: 10.1136/tsaco-2022-001044. eCollection 2023.

Abstract

The complexity of the care environment, the emergent nature, and the severity of patient injury make conducting clinical trauma research challenging. These challenges hamper the ability to investigate potentially life-saving research that aims to deliver pharmacotherapeutics, test medical devices, and develop technologies that may improve patient survival and recovery. Regulations intended to protect research subjects impede scientific advancements needed to treat the critically ill and injured and balancing these regulatory priorities is challenging in the acute setting. This scoping review attempted to systematically identify what regulations are challenging in conducting trauma and emergency research. A systematic search of PubMed was performed to identify studies published between 2007 and 2020, from which 289 articles that address regulatory challenges in conducting research in emergency settings were included. Data were extracted and summarized using descriptive statistics and a narrative synthesis of the results. The review is reported in accordance with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses extension for Scoping Reviews guidelines. Most articles identified were editorial/commentary (31%) and published in the USA (49%). Regulatory factors addressed in the papers were categorized under 15 regulatory challenge areas: informed consent (78%), research ethics (65%), institutional review board (55%), human subjects protection (54%), enrollment (53%), exception from informed consent (51%), legally authorized representative (50%), patient safety (41%), community consultation (40%), waiver of informed consent (40%), recruitment challenges (39%), patient perception (30%), liability (15%), participant incentives (13%), and common rule (11%). We identified several regulatory barriers to conducting trauma and emergency research. This summary will support the development of best practices for investigators and funding agencies.

摘要

护理环境的复杂性、病情的突发性以及患者损伤的严重性,使得开展临床创伤研究具有挑战性。这些挑战阻碍了对旨在提供药物治疗、测试医疗设备以及开发可能改善患者生存和康复状况的技术等潜在救生研究的调查。旨在保护研究对象的法规阻碍了治疗重症和受伤患者所需的科学进步,而在急性情况下平衡这些监管重点具有挑战性。本范围综述试图系统地确定在进行创伤和急诊研究时哪些法规具有挑战性。我们对PubMed进行了系统检索,以识别2007年至2020年期间发表的研究,从中纳入了289篇涉及急诊环境研究中监管挑战的文章。使用描述性统计和结果的叙述性综合对数据进行提取和总结。本综述按照系统评价和Meta分析扩展版的范围综述报告规范进行报告。所识别的文章大多为社论/评论(31%),且发表于美国(49%)。论文中涉及的监管因素归类于15个监管挑战领域:知情同意(78%)、研究伦理(65%)、机构审查委员会(55%)、人类受试者保护(54%)、入组(53%)、知情同意豁免(51%)、法定授权代表(50%)、患者安全(41%)、社区咨询(40%)、知情同意放弃(40%)、招募挑战(39%)、患者认知(30%)、责任(15%)、参与者激励(13%)以及通用规则(11%)。我们确定了开展创伤和急诊研究的若干监管障碍。本总结将支持为研究人员和资助机构制定最佳实践。

https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/6160/9990621/c84ea29b25c7/tsaco-2022-001044f01.jpg

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