Statistical Power, the Belmont Report, and the Ethics of Clinical Trials

Science and Engineering Ethics

Volumn 16, Issue 4, 2010, Pages 675-691

  Vollmer, Sara H ^a   Howard, George ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF ALABAMA AT BIRMINGHAM   (United States)

Author keywords

Belmont Report; Ethical frameworks; Ethical reasoning; Ethical thinking; Ethics of clinical trials; RCR; Research compliance; Research oversight; Statistical power

Indexed keywords

ARTICLE; CLINICAL TRIAL (TOPIC); ETHICS; HISTORY; HUMAN; HUMAN EXPERIMENT; INFORMED CONSENT; METHODOLOGY; PATIENT SELECTION; RESEARCH ETHICS; RISK; SAFETY; STANDARD; STATISTICS;

CLINICAL TRIALS AS TOPIC; ETHICS, RESEARCH; HISTORY, 20TH CENTURY; HISTORY, 21ST CENTURY; HUMAN EXPERIMENTATION; HUMANS; INFORMED CONSENT; PATIENT SELECTION; RESEARCH DESIGN; RISK; SAFETY; STATISTICS AS TOPIC;

EID: 78650049337     PISSN: 13533452     EISSN: 16605454     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1007/s11948-010-9244-0     Document Type: Article

References (17)

1. Blackmer, J., & Haddad, H. (2005). The declaration of Helsinki: An update on paragraph 30. Canadian Medical Association Journal, 173, 1052-1053.
2. Brandon, S. (1991). Ethics, economics, and science. Journal of the Royal Society of Medicine, 84, 575-577.
3. Burdick, C. (1995). Reporting of power and sample size in randomized controlled trials. Journal of the American Medical Association, 273, 22.
4. Capron, A. (2004). When experiments go wrong: The U. S. perspective. The Journal of Clinical Ethics, 15, 22-29.
5. Clinical Research Resources, LLC. (2006). Regulation and guidance on the protection of human subjects: Clinical investigator, IRB and sponsor responsibilities. Philadelphia: Clinical Research Resources, LLC.
6. Cohen, J. (1992). A power primer. Psychological Bulletin, 112, 155-159.
7. Frieman, J. A., Chalmers, T. C., Smith, H., & Kuebler, R. R. (1978). The importance of beta, the type II error, and sample size in the design and interpretation of the randomized controlled trial: Survey of 71 'negative' trials. New England Journal of Medicine, 299, 690-694.
8. Hughes, A., & Grawoig, D. (1971). Statistics: A foundation for analysis. Reading: Addison-Wesley Publishing Company.
9. Levine, R. (1979). Ethical considerations in clinical trials. Clinical Pharmacology and Therapeutics, 25(5), 728-774.
10. Matchett, N. J. (2007). Frameworks. Center for ethical deliberation. http://mcb. unco. edu/ced/frameworks/. Accessed 15 October 2010.
11. Moher, D., Dulberg, C. S., & Wells, G. A. (1994). Statistical Power, sample size, and their reporting in randomized controlled trials. Journal of the American Medical Association, 272, 122-124.
12. Motulsky, H. (1995). Intuitive biostatistics. New York: Oxford University Press.
13. National Commission for the Protection of Human Subjects of Biomedical and Behavioral Research. (1975). Appendix: The Belmont report: Ethical principles and guidelines for the protection of human subjects of research (Vol. I and II). Washington, DC: U. S. Government Printing Office.
14. National Commission for the Protection of Human Subjects of Biomedical and Behavioral Research. (1979). The Belmont report. Office of human subjects research. National http://ohsr. od. nih. gov/guidelines/belmont. html. Accessed 15 October 2010.
15. Office for Human Research Protections (first edition 1981; revised, updated, and expanded by Robin Penslar). (1993). Institutional Review Board Guidebook. http://www. hhs. gov/ohrp/irb/irb_guidebook. htm. Accessed 15 October 2010.
16. Tollman, S., Bastian, H., Doll, R., Hirsch, L. J., & Guess, H. A. (2001). What are the effects of the fifth revision of the declaration of Helsinki? British Medical Journal, 323, 1417-1423.
17. World Medical Association. (2004). Declaration of Helsinki. Office of Human Subjects Research. http://ohsr. od. nih. gov/guidelines/helsinki. html. Accessed 15 October 2010.