Williams C J, Zwitter M
CRC Medical Oncology Unit, Southampton University Hospitals, U.K.
Eur J Cancer. 1994;30A(7):907-10. doi: 10.1016/0959-8049(94)90111-2.
This study was designed to examine the standard of consent used by investigators in European randomised clinical trials (RCT). The participants of 12 multicentre RCTs published in the European Journal of Cancer in the years 1990-1992 were asked to complete a short questionnaire regarding their practice of obtaining consent in the trial reported. Anonymity was assured. Replies were received from 60 of 88 clinicians contacted. Data showed that 12% of clinicians did not inform their patients about the trial prior to randomisation. Thirty-eight per cent of clinicians did not always tell patients that they had been assigned to their treatment randomly. Only 32% of clinicians used written consent, 21% used written information without obligatory signing, 42% used verbal consent, and in 5% no consent was sought. Even when information was given, only 58% of clinicians gave full information on all aspects of the trial and 42% gave information on the proposed treatment arm only (27% revealing inclusion in an RCT). When examined by geographical origin, clinicians in northern Europe were more likely to obtain full consent than those from southern Europe. Similarly, the level of consent was higher in trials of supportive care than in trials testing curative or palliative antitumour therapies.
本研究旨在调查欧洲随机临床试验(RCT)中研究者使用的同意标准。要求1990年至1992年发表于《欧洲癌症杂志》的12项多中心RCT的参与者填写一份简短问卷,内容涉及他们在所报告试验中获取同意的做法。保证匿名。在联系的88名临床医生中,有60人回复。数据显示,12%的临床医生在随机分组前未告知患者有关试验的情况。38%的临床医生并非总是告知患者他们是被随机分配接受治疗的。只有32%的临床医生使用书面同意书,21%使用无需强制签署的书面信息,42%使用口头同意,5%未寻求任何同意。即使提供了信息,也只有58%的临床医生就试验的所有方面提供了完整信息,42%仅提供了关于拟接受治疗组的信息(27%表明纳入了RCT)。按地理区域分析,北欧的临床医生比南欧的临床医生更有可能获得完全同意。同样,支持性治疗试验中的同意程度高于检测根治性或姑息性抗肿瘤治疗的试验。