Clinical experimentation: Lessons from lung volume reduction surgery

Chest

Volumn 110, Issue 1, 1996, Pages 230-238

  Tonelli, Mark R ^a,b   Benditt, Joshua O ^a   Albert, Richard K ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF WASHINGTON   (United States)

^b UNIVERSITY OF WASHINGTON   (United States)

Author keywords

ethics, medical; experimental therapy; informed consent; lung volume reduction surgery; technology assessment

Indexed keywords

BETA ADRENERGIC RECEPTOR STIMULATING AGENT;

HUMAN; INFORMED CONSENT; LUNG EMPHYSEMA; LUNG RESECTION; LUNG VOLUME; MEDICAL ETHICS; PRIORITY JOURNAL; REVIEW; SAFETY;

EID: 0030014258     PISSN: 00123692     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1378/chest.110.1.230     Document Type: Article

References (35)

1. The Evidence-Based Medicine Working Group. Evidence-based medicine: A new approach to teaching the practice of medicine. JAMA 1992; 268:2420-25
2. Brantigan OC, Mueller E. Surgical treatment of pulmonary emphysema. Am Rev Respir Dis 1959; 80:194-202
3. Cooper J. Technique to reduce air leaks after resection of emphysematous lung. Ann Thorac Surg 1994; 57:1038-39
4. Trulock E, Cooper JD. Reduction pneumoplasty for COPD [abstract]. Chest 1994; 106:52S
5. Decker CC. Room to breathe. Saturday Evening Post, 1994; 48-9
6. Perry P. Breakthrough for emphysema patients. Saturday Evening Post, 1994; 50-3
7. Cooper JD, Trulock EP, Triantafillou AN. Bilateral pneumonectomy (volume reduction) for chronic obstructive pulmonary disease. J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg 1995; 109:106-19
8. Gaissert H, Trulock E, Cooper J, et al. Comparison of early functional results after volume reduction or lung transplantation for chronic obstructive pulmonary disease. J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg 1996; 111:296-307
9. Keenan R, Landreneau R, Sciurba F, et al. Unilateral thoracoscopic surgical approach for diffuse emphysema. J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg 1996; 111:308-16
10. McKenna R, Brenner M, Gelb A, et al. A randomized, prospective trial of stapled lung reduction versus laser bullectomy for diffuse emphysema. J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg 1996; 111:317-2
11. Nelkin D. Selling science: how the press covers science and technology. New York: WH Freeman, 1987; 85-131
12. Mailing from the University of Southern California Cardiothoracic Center [letter]. Los Angeles: USC Cardiothoracic Center, 1995; 1-2
13. Benditt JO, Albert RK. Lung reduction surgery: great expectations and a cautionary note [editorial]. Chest 1995; 107:297-98
14. Cooper J, Lefrak S. Is volume reduction surgery appropriate in the treatment of emphysema? yes. Am J Respir Crit Care Med 1996; 153:1201-04
15. Make B, Fein A. Is volume reduction surgery appropriate in the treatment of emphysema? no. Am J Respir Crit Care Med 1996; 153:1205-07
16. Ferguson JH, Dubinsky M, Kirsch PJ. Court-ordered reimbursement of unproven medical technology: circumventing technology assessment. JAMA 1993; 269:2116-21
17. Kolata G. Women reject trials for testing cancer therapy. New York Times. 1995:A1, Col 1
18. Dickens B. What is a medical experiment? Can Med Assoc J 1975; 113:635-39
19. Howard-Jones N. Human experimentation in historical and ethical perspectives. Soc Sci Med 1982; 16:1429-48
20. Schneiderman LJ, Jecker NS. Is the treatment beneficial, experimental or futile? Cambridge Q 1996; 5:248-56
21. Scherer RW, Dickersin K, Langenberg P. Full publication of results initially presented in abstracts: a meta-analysis. JAMA 1994; 272:158-62
22. Sciurba F, Rogers R, Keenan R, et al. Improvement in pulmonary function and elastic recoil after lung-reduction surgery for diffuse emphysema. N Engl J Med 1996; 334:1095-99
23. King NMP. Experimental treatment: oxymoron or aspiration? Hastings Cent Rep 1995; 25:6-15
24. Faden RR, Beauchamp TL. A history and theory of informed consent. New York: Oxford University Press, 1986; 392
25. Katz J. "Ethics and clinical research" revisited: a tribute to Henry K. Beecher. Hastings Cent Rep 1993; 23:31-9
26. Spodick DH. Numerators without denominators: there is no FDA for the surgeon. JAMA 1975; 232:35-6
27. Love JW. Drugs and operations: some important differences JAMA 1975; 232:37-8
28. Snider G. Health-care technology assessment of surgical procedures: the case of reduction pneumoplasty for empysema. Am J Respir Crit Care Med 1996; 153:1208-13
29. Grimes DA. Technology follies: the uncritical acceptance of medical innovation. JAMA 1993; 269:3030-33
30. Cobb LA, Thomas GI, Dillard DH, et al. An evaluation of internal-mammary ligation by a double-blind technique. N Engl J Med 1959; 260:1115-18
31. Rusch V. Lung reduction surgery: a true advance? J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg 1996; 111:293-95
32. Freedman B. Equipoise and the ethics of clinical research. N Engl J Med 1987;317:141-45
33. Cutaia M. Lung reduction surgery: where are we heading [editorial]? Chest 1996; 109:866-69
34. Cassileth BR, Lusk EJ, Miller DS, et al. Attitudes toward clinical trials among patients and the public. JAMA 1982; 248:968-70
35. The National Commission for the Protection of Human Subjects of Biomedical and Behavioral Research. The Belmont Report: ethical principles for the protection of human subjects of research (vol. FR Doc. 79-12065), 1979