Skip to main content
Key Specialties
Cardiology Diabetology Endocrinology Gastroenterology Geriatrics and Gerontology Gynecology and Obstetrics Hematology Infectious Disease Internal Medicine Nephrology Neurology Oncology Pediatrics Respiratory Medicine Rheumatology Surgery
Congress Coverage
2024 ACC Congress 2023 ESMO Congress 2023 EASD Congress 2023 ERS Congress 2023 ESC Congress
Clinical Collections
Advances in Alzheimer’s

At a glance: The STEP trials

A round-up of the STEP phase 3 clinical trials evaluating semaglutide for weight loss in people with overweight or obesity.
ADVANCED SEARCH
Log in
Top
Critical Care
Published in: Critical Care 6/2006

01-12-2006 | Review

Bench-to-bedside review: Human subjects research – are more standards needed?

Authors: David T Huang, Mehrnaz Hadian

Published in: Critical Care | Issue 6/2006

Login to get access

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.
Literature
1.
2.
3.
US Government Printing Office: The Nuremberg Code. In Reprinted in: Trials of War Criminals before the Nuremberg Military Tribunals under Control Council Law. Washington, DC: US Government Printing Office; 1949:181-182.
4.
Michels R: Are research ethics bad for our mental health? N Engl J Med 1999, 340: 1427-1430. 10.1056/NEJM199905063401811CrossRefPubMed
5.
Diekema DS: Conducting ethical research in pediatric emergency medicine. Clin Pediatr Emerg Med 2003, 4: 273-284. 10.1016/S1522-8401(03)00071-5CrossRef
6.
Lantos JD: Pediatric research: what is broken and what needs to be fixed? J Pediatr 2004, 144: 147-149. 10.1016/j.jpeds.2003.12.026CrossRefPubMed
7.
Wood KA, Huang D, Angus DC: Improving clinical trial design in acute lung injury. Crit Care Med 2003, (Suppl):S305-S311. 10.1097/01.CCM.0000057908.11686.B3
8.
World Medical Association: Declaration of Helsinki: recommendations guiding physicians in biomedical research involving human subjects. JAMA 1997, 277: 925-926. 10.1001/jama.277.11.925CrossRef
9.
The National Commission for the Protection of Human Subjects of Biomedical and Behavioral Research: The Belmont Report: Ethical Principles and Guidelines for the Protection of Human Subjects of Research. Washington, DC: US Government Printing Office (DHEW publication); 1979.
10.
Rosenbaum JR: Educating researchers: ethics and protection of human research participants. Crit Care Med 2003, (Suppl):S161-S166. 10.1097/01.CCM.0000054900.11370.FC
11.
12.
Seto B: Required education on the protection of human subjects: an NIH initiative. Kennedy Inst Ethics J 2001, 11: 87-90. 10.1353/ken.2001.0007CrossRefPubMed
13.
Stolberg SG: The biotech death of Jesse Gelsinger. NY Times Magazine 1999, 28: 136-150.
14.
Wade N: Death leads to concerns for future of gene therapy. NY Times 1999, 30 September: A22.
15.
Angell M: Is academic medicine for sale? N Engl J Med 2000, 342: 1516-1518. 10.1056/NEJM200005183422009CrossRefPubMed
16.
Shalala D: Protecting research subjects: What must be done? N Engl J Med 2000, 343: 808-810. 10.1056/NEJM200009143431112CrossRefPubMed
17.
Kodish E: Informed consent for pediatric research: Is it really possible? J Pediatr 2003, 142: 89-90. 10.1067/mpd.2003.64CrossRefPubMed
18.
19.
Karlawish JHT: Research involving cognitive impaired adults. N Engl J Med 2003, 348: 1389-1392. 10.1056/NEJMsb030172CrossRefPubMed
20.
Silverman HJ, Luce JM, Lanken PN, Morris AH, Harabin AL, Oldmixon CF, Thompson BT, Bernard GR: Recommendations for informed consent forms for critical care clinical trials. Crit Care Med 2005, 33: 867-882. 10.1097/01.CCM.0000159201.08203.10CrossRefPubMed
21.
Ellensberg SS: Informed consent: protection or obstacle? Control Clin Trials 1997, 18: 628-636. 10.1016/S0197-2456(96)00130-4CrossRef
22.
Kim SYH, Kim HM, McCallum C, Tariot PN: What do people at risk for Alzheimer disease think about surrogate consent for research? Neurology 2005, 65: 1395-1401. 10.1212/01.wnl.0000183144.61428.73CrossRefPubMed
23.
Coppolino M, Ackerson L: Do surrogate decision makers provide accurate consent for intensive care research? Chest 2001, 119: 603-612. 10.1378/chest.119.2.603CrossRefPubMed
24.
Luce JM: Is the concept of informed consent applicable to clinical research involving critically ill patients? Crit Care Med 2003, (Suppl 3):S153-S160. 10.1097/01.CCM.0000054901.80339.01
25.
Biros MH: Research without consent: current status, 2003. Ann Emerg Med 2003, 42: 550-564. 10.1067/S0196-0644(03)00490-6CrossRefPubMed
26.
Department of Health and Human Services: Protection of human subjects: informed consent and waiver of consent requirements in certain emergency research: final rules. Federal Register 1996, October: 51500-51533.
27.
Brios MH, Runge JW, Lewis RJ: Emergency medicine and the development of the FDA's final rule on informed consent and waiver of informed consent in emergency research circumstances. Acad Emerg Med 1998, 5: 359-368.CrossRef
28.
Lurie K, Benditt D: Regulated to death: the matter of informed consent for human experimentation in emergency research. Pacing Clin Electrophysiol 1995, 18: 1443-1447. 10.1111/j.1540-8159.1995.tb02607.xCrossRefPubMed
29.
Abramson NS, Meisel A, Safar P: Deferred consent: a new approach for resuscitation research on comatose patients. JAMA 1986, 255: 2466-2471. 10.1001/jama.255.18.2466CrossRefPubMed
30.
Holmes DR, Firth B, James A, Winslow R, Hodgson PK, Gamble GL, Popp RL, Harrington RA: Conflict of interest. Am Heart J 2004, 147: 228-237. 10.1016/j.ahj.2003.12.001CrossRefPubMed
31.
Campbell EG, Weissman JS, Clarridge B, Yucel R, Causino N, Blumenthal D: Characteristics of faculty serving on IRBs: research of a national survey of medical school faculty. Acad Med 2003, 78: 831-837. 10.1097/00001888-200308000-00019CrossRefPubMed
32.
Bekelman JE, Li Y, Gross CP: Scope and impact of financial conflicts of interest in biomedical research: a systemic review. JAMA 2003, 289: 454-465. 10.1001/jama.289.4.454CrossRefPubMed
33.
Ghersi D: The future of institutional review boards. Lancet Oncol 2004, 4: 325-329. 10.1016/S1470-2045(04)01473-1CrossRef
34.
Paasche-Orlow MK, Brancati FL: Assessment of medical school institutional review board policies regarding compensation of subjects for research-related injury. Am J Med 2005, 118: 175-180. 10.1016/j.amjmed.2004.03.045CrossRefPubMed
35.
36.
Hey E, Chalmers L: Are any of the criticisms of the CNEP trial true? Lancet 2006, 367: 1032-1033. 10.1016/S0140-6736(06)68445-6CrossRefPubMed
37.
Southall DP, Samuel MP: CNEP needs to return. Lancet 2006, 367: 1033-1035. 10.1016/S0140-6736(06)68446-8CrossRefPubMed
38.
Craft AW, McIntosh N: Southall and colleagues vindicated once more. Lancet 2006, 367: 1035-1037. 10.1016/S0140-6736(06)68447-XCrossRefPubMed
39.
Abelson R: Hospitals see possible conflict on medical devices for doctors. New York Times 2005,22(September):1.
40.
Eichenwald K, Kolata G: Drug trials hide conflicts for doctors. New York Times 1999,16(May):1.
41.
Silverman H, Hull SC, Sugarman J: Variability among institutional review boards' decisions within the context of a muti-center trial. Crit Care Med 2001, 29: 235-241. 10.1097/00003246-200102000-00002CrossRefPubMed
42.
Shah S, Whittle A, Wilfond B, Gensler G, Wendler D: How do IRBs apply the federal risk and benefit standards for pediatrics research? JAMA 2004, 291: 476-482. 10.1001/jama.291.4.476CrossRefPubMed
43.
Office of Inspector General: Institutional Review Boards: Their Role in Reviewing Approved Research. Washington, DC: US Government Printing Office; 1998.
44.
Vick CC, Finan KR, Kiefe C, Neumayer L, Hawn MT: Variation in Institutional Review processes for a multisite observational study. Am J Surg 2005, 190: 805-809. 10.1016/j.amjsurg.2005.07.024CrossRefPubMed
45.
Wendler D, Emanuel EJ: What is a 'minor' increase over minimal risk? J Pediatr 2005, 147: 575-578. 10.1016/j.jpeds.2005.07.013CrossRefPubMed
46.
47.
Burman WJ, Reves RR, Cohn DL, Schooley RT: Breaking the camel's back: multicenter clinical trials and local institutional review boards. Am Intern Med 2001, 134: 152-157.CrossRef
48.
Wolf LE, Walden JF, Lo B: Human subjects issues and IRB review in practice-based research. Ann Fam Med 2005, (Suppl):S30-S37. 10.1370/afm.302
49.
Kofke WA, Rie MA: Research ethics and law of healthcare system quality improvement: The conflict of cost containment and quality. Crit Care Med 2003, (Suppl):S143-S152. 10.1097/01.CCM.0000054902.85329.50
50.
Strasberg SM, Ludbrook PA: Who oversees innovative practice? Is there a structire that meets the monitoring needs of new techniques? J Am Coll Surg 2003, 196: 938-948. 10.1016/S1072-7515(03)00112-1CrossRefPubMed
51.
Reitsma AM, Moreno JD: Ethics of innovative surgery: US Surgeons' definition, knowledge, and attitudes. J Am Coll Surg 2005, 200: 103-110. 10.1016/j.jamcollsurg.2004.09.032CrossRefPubMed
52.
Kristjanson LJ, Hanson EJ, Balneaves L: Research in palliative care populations: ethical issues. J Palliat Care 1994, 10: 10-15.PubMed
53.
Krouse RS, Easson AM, Angelos P: Ethical considerations and barriers to research in surgical palliative care. J Am Coll Surg 2003, 196: 469-474. 10.1016/S1072-7515(02)01890-2CrossRefPubMed
54.
Kasa S, De Conno F: Palliative care research. Eur J Cancer 2001, 37: S153-S159. 10.1016/S0959-8049(01)00260-XCrossRef
55.
McCullough LB, Coverdale JH, Chervenak FA: A comprehensive ethical framework for responsibly designing and conducting pharmacologic research that involves pregnant women. Am J Obstet Gynecol 2005, 193: 901-907. 10.1016/j.ajog.2005.06.020CrossRefPubMed
56.
Reitsma AM, Moreno JD: Meternal-fetal research and human research protections policy. Clin Perinatol 2003, 30: 141-153. 10.1016/S0095-5108(02)00079-9CrossRefPubMed
57.
Moore V: The Regents of the University of California. 271 Cal Rptr 1436 793. 2nd 479 (Cal 1990)
58.
59.
Kaiser J: Court decides tissue samples belong to university, not patients. Science Magazine 2006, 312: 5772.
60.
Wendler D, Foster H: Why we need legal standards for pediatric research. J Pediatr 2004, 144: 150-153. 10.1016/j.jpeds.2003.10.033CrossRefPubMed
61.
Truog RD, Robinson W, Randolph A, Morris A: Is informed consent always necessary for randomized controlled trials? N Engl J Med 1999, 340: 804-807. 10.1056/NEJM199903113401013CrossRefPubMed
62.
Truog RD: will ethical requirements bring critical care research to a halt? Intensive Care Med 2005, 31: 338-344. 10.1007/s00134-004-2480-5CrossRefPubMed
63.
Weijer C, Miller PB: When are research risks reasonable in relation to anticipated benefits? Nat Med 2004, 10: 570-573. 10.1038/nm0604-570CrossRefPubMed
64.
Emanuel EJ: Institutional review board reform. N Engl J Med 2002, 347: 1285-1286. 10.1056/NEJM200210173471620CrossRefPubMed
65.
Christian MC, Goldberg JL, Killen J, Abrams JS, McCabe MS, Mauer JK, Wittes RE: A central institutional review board for multi-institutional trials. N Engl J Med 2002, 346: 1405-1408. 10.1056/NEJM200205023461814CrossRefPubMed
66.
67.
68.
69.
Grimes v. Kennedy Krieger Institute, Inc782 A.2d 807 (Md Ct of App 2001, reconsideration denied, Oct. 11, 2001)
70.
Metadata
Title
Bench-to-bedside review: Human subjects research – are more standards needed?
Authors
David T Huang
Mehrnaz Hadian
Publication date
01-12-2006
Publisher
BioMed Central
Published in
Critical Care / Issue 6/2006
Electronic ISSN: 1364-8535
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1186/cc5114

Other articles of this Issue 6/2006

Critical Care 6/2006 Go to the issue

Commentary

Blood glucose measurements in the critically ill: more than just a blood draw

Journal club critique

Drotrecogin alfa (activated) should not be used in patients with severe sepsis and low risk for death

Commentary

Iatrogenesis, inflammation and organ injury: insights from a murine model

Commentary

Recently published papers: putting fluids in and taking fluids out

Commentary

Can you justify not using ultrasound guidance for central venous access?

Commentary

Should we use central venous saturation to guide management in high-risk surgical patients?