肺动脉导管临床试验的伦理问题。

New horizons (Baltimore, Md.) Pub Date : 1997-08-01
C L Sprung, L A Eidelman
{"title":"肺动脉导管临床试验的伦理问题。","authors":"C L Sprung,&nbsp;L A Eidelman","doi":"","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Objective: </strong>To review the literature addressing ethical issues related to clinical research and the pulmonary artery catheter (PAC).</p><p><strong>Data source: </strong>All pertinent English language articles dealing with ethical issues related to clinical research and the PAC were retrieved from 1970 through 1996.</p><p><strong>Study selection: </strong>Articles were chosen for review if ethical issues related to clinical research and the PAC were studied or reviewed.</p><p><strong>Data extraction: </strong>From the articles selected, information was obtained about the ethics of clinical research related to the PAC.</p><p><strong>Data synthesis: </strong>Many current procedures and treatments used on a daily basis have not been proven effective by clinical trials. Studies showing increased mortality with the use of PACs are worrisome. Many clinicians have strong preferences about the use of PACs for various indications and there have been difficulties performing clinical trials. Clinical equipoise occurs when competent physicians are content to have their patients receive any of the various treatments in a randomized trial because, based on available data, none has proven preferable. Clinical equipoise for pulmonary artery catheterization for various indications is unknown. If >70% of experts determine that pulmonary artery catheterization is indicated or contraindicated for specific indications, clinical equipoise does not exist and a trial could not ethically be performed for these indications. Indications and contraindications for pulmonary artery catheterization for these indications, however, should be determined. Clinical equipoise would be present if <70% of experts favor pulmonary artery catheterization for a specific indication and trials could be performed in patients with these disorders.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>Randomized clinical trails of pulmonary artery catheterization can ethically be conducted.</p>","PeriodicalId":79357,"journal":{"name":"New horizons (Baltimore, Md.)","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"1997-08-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Ethical issues of clinical trials for the pulmonary artery catheter.\",\"authors\":\"C L Sprung,&nbsp;L A Eidelman\",\"doi\":\"\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Objective: </strong>To review the literature addressing ethical issues related to clinical research and the pulmonary artery catheter (PAC).</p><p><strong>Data source: </strong>All pertinent English language articles dealing with ethical issues related to clinical research and the PAC were retrieved from 1970 through 1996.</p><p><strong>Study selection: </strong>Articles were chosen for review if ethical issues related to clinical research and the PAC were studied or reviewed.</p><p><strong>Data extraction: </strong>From the articles selected, information was obtained about the ethics of clinical research related to the PAC.</p><p><strong>Data synthesis: </strong>Many current procedures and treatments used on a daily basis have not been proven effective by clinical trials. Studies showing increased mortality with the use of PACs are worrisome. Many clinicians have strong preferences about the use of PACs for various indications and there have been difficulties performing clinical trials. Clinical equipoise occurs when competent physicians are content to have their patients receive any of the various treatments in a randomized trial because, based on available data, none has proven preferable. Clinical equipoise for pulmonary artery catheterization for various indications is unknown. If >70% of experts determine that pulmonary artery catheterization is indicated or contraindicated for specific indications, clinical equipoise does not exist and a trial could not ethically be performed for these indications. Indications and contraindications for pulmonary artery catheterization for these indications, however, should be determined. Clinical equipoise would be present if <70% of experts favor pulmonary artery catheterization for a specific indication and trials could be performed in patients with these disorders.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>Randomized clinical trails of pulmonary artery catheterization can ethically be conducted.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":79357,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"New horizons (Baltimore, Md.)\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"1997-08-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"New horizons (Baltimore, Md.)\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"New horizons (Baltimore, Md.)","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

目的:回顾与临床研究和肺动脉导管(PAC)相关的伦理问题。数据来源:从1970年到1996年检索所有与临床研究和PAC相关的伦理问题的相关英文文章。研究选择:如果研究或审查了与临床研究和PAC相关的伦理问题,则选择文章进行审查。数据提取:从所选的文章中,获得了与pac相关的临床研究伦理的信息。数据综合:目前日常使用的许多程序和治疗方法尚未被临床试验证明是有效的。研究表明,使用PACs会增加死亡率,这令人担忧。许多临床医生对各种适应症使用PACs有强烈的偏好,并且在进行临床试验方面存在困难。当有能力的医生满足于让他们的病人在随机试验中接受各种治疗中的任何一种时,临床平衡就出现了,因为根据现有的数据,没有一种治疗被证明是更好的。各种适应症肺动脉插管的临床平衡尚不清楚。如果超过70%的专家确定肺动脉导管插入适合或禁忌用于特定适应症,则不存在临床平衡,并且在伦理上不能针对这些适应症进行试验。然而,对于这些适应症,应确定肺动脉插管的适应症和禁忌症。结论:肺动脉置管的随机临床试验能够合乎伦理地进行。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Ethical issues of clinical trials for the pulmonary artery catheter.

Objective: To review the literature addressing ethical issues related to clinical research and the pulmonary artery catheter (PAC).

Data source: All pertinent English language articles dealing with ethical issues related to clinical research and the PAC were retrieved from 1970 through 1996.

Study selection: Articles were chosen for review if ethical issues related to clinical research and the PAC were studied or reviewed.

Data extraction: From the articles selected, information was obtained about the ethics of clinical research related to the PAC.

Data synthesis: Many current procedures and treatments used on a daily basis have not been proven effective by clinical trials. Studies showing increased mortality with the use of PACs are worrisome. Many clinicians have strong preferences about the use of PACs for various indications and there have been difficulties performing clinical trials. Clinical equipoise occurs when competent physicians are content to have their patients receive any of the various treatments in a randomized trial because, based on available data, none has proven preferable. Clinical equipoise for pulmonary artery catheterization for various indications is unknown. If >70% of experts determine that pulmonary artery catheterization is indicated or contraindicated for specific indications, clinical equipoise does not exist and a trial could not ethically be performed for these indications. Indications and contraindications for pulmonary artery catheterization for these indications, however, should be determined. Clinical equipoise would be present if <70% of experts favor pulmonary artery catheterization for a specific indication and trials could be performed in patients with these disorders.

Conclusion: Randomized clinical trails of pulmonary artery catheterization can ethically be conducted.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信