Patient care versus research: Does clinical research provide individual benefit to patients enrolled in trials?

Current Opinion in Critical Care

Volumn 10, Issue 6, 2004, Pages 565-569

  Lemaire, François ^a  

^a HENRI MONDOR HOSPITAL   (France)

Author keywords

Belmont report; Clinical research; Equipoise; Ethics committee; European directive; Individual benefit of research; Risk benefit ratio; Therapeutic misconception; Tuskegee Syphilis Study

Indexed keywords

CLINICAL RESEARCH; EUROPE; HUMAN; LAW; MEDICAL ETHICS; MEDICAL LITERATURE; PATIENT CARE; PHYSICIAN; REVIEW; RISK BENEFIT ANALYSIS; SAFETY; UNITED STATES;

EID: 10244251581     PISSN: 10705295     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1097/01.ccx.0000144764.96410.e1     Document Type: Review

References (20)

1. Schafer A: The ethics of the randomized trial. N Engl J Med 1982, 307:719-724.
2. Levine R: Ethics and Regulation of Clinical Research, 2nd ed. Baltimore: Urban and Schwarzenberg, 1986.
3. Jones JH: 1993. Bad Blood, 2nd ed. New York: The Free Press.
4. Beecher HK: Ethics and clinical research. N Engl J Med 1966, 274:1354-1360.
5. National Commission for the Protection of Human Subjects of Biomedical and Behavioral Research: Belmont Report: Ethical Principles and Guidelines for the Protection of Human Subjects of Research. Washington, DC: US Government Printing Office, 1979.
6. Levine RJ: The need to revise the declaration of Helsinki. Lancet 1999, 341:531-534.
7. Council of Europe: Convention for the Protection of human rights and dignity of the human being with regard to the application of biology and medicine, 1997. Available at: http://www.coe.int., accessed 12-07-2004
8. Miller FG, Rosenstein DL: The therapeutic orientation to clinical trials. N Engl J Med 2003, 348:1383-1386. One of the most recent reviews on the subject, one of five articles in this journal on the acute respiratory distress syndrome controversy.
9. Freedman B: Equipoise and the ethics of clinical research. N Engl J Med 1987, 317:141-145.
10. Kassirer JP, Angell M: Financial conflicts of interest in biomedical research. N Engl J Med 1993, 329:570-571.
11. Levinsky NG: Non financial conflicts of interest in research. N Engl J Med 2002, 347:759-761.
12. Appelbaum PS, Roth LH, Lidz CW, et al.: False hopes and best data: consent to research and the therapeutic misconception. Hastings Cent Rep 1987, 17:20-24.
13. Freeman B, Danner R, Banks S, et al.: Safeguarding patients in clinical trials with high mortality rates. Am J Respir Crit Care Med 2001, 164:190-192.
14. Lemaire F, Brun-Buisson C: Are institutional review boards effective in safeguarding patients in intensive care units? Curr Opin Anaesthesiol 2000, 13:195-200.
15. DHHS: Protection of human subjects: informed consent and waiver of informed consent requirements in certain emergency research. Federal Register, 1996.
16. Lantos J: The "inclusion benefit" in clinical trials. J Pediatr 1999, 134:130-131.
17. Peppercorn JM, Weeks JC, Cook EF, et al.: Comparison of outcomes in cancer patients treated within and outside clinical trials: conceptual framework and structured review. Lancet 2004, 363:263-270.
18. Braunholtz DA, Edwards S, Lilford R: Are randomized clinical trials good for us? Evidence for a "trial effect". J Clin Epidemiol 2001, 54:217-224.
19. Weijer C, Miller PB: When are research risks reasonable in relation to anticipated benefits? Nat Med 2004, 10:570-573.
20. Silverman HJ, Luce JM, Schwartz J: Protecting subjects with decisional impairment in research: the need for a multifaceted approach. Am J Respir Crit Care Med 2004, 169:10-14.