Pediatric research: What is broken and what needs to be fixed?

Journal of Pediatrics

Volumn 144, Issue 2, 2004, Pages 147-149

  Lantos, John D ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF CHICAGO   (United States)

Author keywords

Institutional Review Board; IRB

Indexed keywords

CHILD HEALTH CARE; EDITORIAL; HUMAN; INFORMATION PROCESSING; LAW; MEDICAL RECORD; MEDICAL RESEARCH; PATIENT CARE; PEDIATRICS; PRIORITY JOURNAL; PROBABILITY; RISK ASSESSMENT; RISK FACTOR; STANDARD; BIOMEDICAL AND BEHAVIORAL RESEARCH; CHILD; CHILD ADVOCACY; ETHICS; GOVERNMENT; GOVERNMENT REGULATION; HUMAN EXPERIMENT; LEGAL APPROACH; LEGAL ASPECT; LEGAL LIABILITY; NOTE; UNITED STATES;

BIOMEDICAL AND BEHAVIORAL RESEARCH; LEGAL APPROACH;

BIOMEDICAL RESEARCH; CHILD; CHILD ADVOCACY; FEDERAL GOVERNMENT; GOVERNMENT REGULATION; HUMANS; LIABILITY, LEGAL; MARYLAND; NONTHERAPEUTIC HUMAN EXPERIMENTATION; UNITED STATES;

EID: 1542287429     PISSN: 00223476     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/j.jpeds.2003.12.026     Document Type: Editorial

References (5)

1. Wendler D., Forster F. Why we need legal standards for pediatric research. J Pediatr. 144:2004;150-153
2. Silverman H., Hull S.C., Sugarman J. Variability among institutional review boards' decisions within the context of a multicenter trial. Crit Care Med. 29:2001;235-241
3. McWilliams R., Hoover-Fong J., Hamosh A. Problematic variation in local institutional review of a multicenter genetic epidemiology study. JAMA. 290:2003;360-366
4. Ramsey P. Ordinary risks of childhood. Hastings Cent Rep. 7:1977;4
5. Burns J.P. Research in children. Crit Care Med. 31:2003;S131-S136