ReviewCritical care (London, England)2006
Bench-to-bedside review: human subjects research--are more standards needed?
Review in Critical care (London, England), 2006. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- Molecular and immunological tools for the evaluation of the cellular immune response in the neotropical monkey Saimiri sciureus, a non-human primate model for malaria research.Malaria journal · 2015Article
- Challenges and opportunities in pain management disparities research: implications for clinical practice, advocacy, and policy.The journal of pain · 2012Review
- Research in critically ill patients: standards of informed consent.Critical care (London, England) · 2007Article
- Changes in the institutional review board submission process for multicenter research over 6 years.Nursing outlookArticle
Corrections and comments
- Commented on by
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
There are many controversial issues surrounding ethics in study design and conduct of human subjects research. In this review we briefly touch on the origin of ethics in clinical research and how the current regulations and standards came into practice. We then discuss current controversies regarding informed consent, conflicts of interest, institutional review boards, and other relevant issues such as innovative procedures and quality improvement projects. The question of whether we need more standards is a very important yet challenging one to which there is no simple answer. We address this question by reviewing and commenting on relevant literature. We conclude that what is needed are not more standards per se, but rather refinement and uniformity of current standards, and their interpretation and application both to protect human subjects and to advance medicine.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.