Consensus on ethics in airway research – a reply

Anaesthesia

Volumn 72, Issue 10, 2017, Pages 1278-1279

  Irwin, M G ^a   Ward, P A ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF HONG KONG   (Hong Kong)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

AIRWAY; ANESTHESIA; CLINICAL PRACTICE; CLINICAL RESEARCH; COMORBIDITY; CONSENSUS; ENDOTRACHEAL INTUBATION; LETTER; MANIKIN; METHODOLOGY; RESEARCH ETHICS; RESPIRATION CONTROL; SIMULATION;

CONSENSUS;

EID: 85029025831     PISSN: 00032409     EISSN: 13652044     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1111/anae.14021     Document Type: Letter

References (6)

1. Cook TM, Duggan LV, Kristensen MS. In search of consensus on ethics in airway research. Anaesthesia 2017; 72: 1175–9.
2. Ward PA, Irwin MG. Man vs. manikin revisited – the ethical boundaries of simulating difficult airways in patients. Anaesthesia 2016; 71: 1399–403.
3. Grocott HP. Difficult airway research options and ethical consensus. Anaesthesia 2017; 72: 541–2.
4. Irwin MG, Ward PA. Difficult airway research options and ethical consensus – a reply. Anaesthesia 2017; 72: 542–3.
5. McLintic AJ, Irwin MG. Is the jury out on consensus opinion? Anaesthesia 2016; 71: 256–60.
6. Sutherland NS. Irrationality. London: Pinter and Martin, 2007.