残血定量:告知临床研究中最小风险的定义

Q2 Social Sciences Ethics & human research Pub Date : 2023-03-27 DOI:10.1002/eahr.500160
Adam L. Gottula, Sara Constand, Sandra Cabrera, Uwe Stolz, Ann Salvator, Michael Goodman, Jason McMullan
{"title":"残血定量:告知临床研究中最小风险的定义","authors":"Adam L. Gottula,&nbsp;Sara Constand,&nbsp;Sandra Cabrera,&nbsp;Uwe Stolz,&nbsp;Ann Salvator,&nbsp;Michael Goodman,&nbsp;Jason McMullan","doi":"10.1002/eahr.500160","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div>\n \n <p>Guidelines from the Office for Human Research Protections regarding categories of research that institutional review boards (IRBs) may review through expedited procedures limit the volume of blood that can be obtained from research participants for minimal risk research purposes. As defined by the Common Rule, minimal risk research is research in which the probability and magnitude of harm or discomfort anticipated are not greater than the probability and magnitude of harm or discomfort encountered from routine clinical tests. For this study, we considered the volume of remnant blood following routine clinical tests in light of the current definition of minimal risk in research. Conducted at a single institution, this was a prospective cross-sectional study that evaluated blood draws from 122 patients. The median daily remnant blood volume was 11.6 (interquartile range [IQR]: 12.3, 15.2) ml for all patients and 12.9 (IQR: 13.1, 16.9) ml for patients admitted to the intensive care unit. Our findings regarding daily remnant blood volume suggest that the currently allowable blood-volume limits to qualify for expedited review or to qualify as not more than minimal risk research involving blood draws from nonhealthy adults are less than what patients experience in routine medical testing. These findings support permitting an increase in the allowable blood-volume limits to meet the regulatory definition of minimal risk research for obtaining expedited IRB review of studies in which blood samples will be collected.</p>\n </div>","PeriodicalId":36829,"journal":{"name":"Ethics & human research","volume":"45 2","pages":"35-39"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2023-03-27","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1002/eahr.500160","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Remnant Blood Quantification: Informing the Definition of Minimal Risk in Clinical Research\",\"authors\":\"Adam L. Gottula,&nbsp;Sara Constand,&nbsp;Sandra Cabrera,&nbsp;Uwe Stolz,&nbsp;Ann Salvator,&nbsp;Michael Goodman,&nbsp;Jason McMullan\",\"doi\":\"10.1002/eahr.500160\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<div>\\n \\n <p>Guidelines from the Office for Human Research Protections regarding categories of research that institutional review boards (IRBs) may review through expedited procedures limit the volume of blood that can be obtained from research participants for minimal risk research purposes. As defined by the Common Rule, minimal risk research is research in which the probability and magnitude of harm or discomfort anticipated are not greater than the probability and magnitude of harm or discomfort encountered from routine clinical tests. For this study, we considered the volume of remnant blood following routine clinical tests in light of the current definition of minimal risk in research. Conducted at a single institution, this was a prospective cross-sectional study that evaluated blood draws from 122 patients. The median daily remnant blood volume was 11.6 (interquartile range [IQR]: 12.3, 15.2) ml for all patients and 12.9 (IQR: 13.1, 16.9) ml for patients admitted to the intensive care unit. Our findings regarding daily remnant blood volume suggest that the currently allowable blood-volume limits to qualify for expedited review or to qualify as not more than minimal risk research involving blood draws from nonhealthy adults are less than what patients experience in routine medical testing. These findings support permitting an increase in the allowable blood-volume limits to meet the regulatory definition of minimal risk research for obtaining expedited IRB review of studies in which blood samples will be collected.</p>\\n </div>\",\"PeriodicalId\":36829,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Ethics & human research\",\"volume\":\"45 2\",\"pages\":\"35-39\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2023-03-27\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1002/eahr.500160\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Ethics & human research\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/eahr.500160\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"Social Sciences\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Ethics & human research","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/eahr.500160","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"Social Sciences","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

人类研究保护办公室关于机构审查委员会(IRB)可以通过快速程序审查的研究类别的指导方针限制了为最低风险研究目的从研究参与者那里获得的血液量。根据共同规则的定义,最小风险研究是指预期伤害或不适的概率和程度不大于常规临床试验中遇到的伤害或不舒服的概率和幅度的研究。在这项研究中,我们根据目前研究中最小风险的定义,考虑了常规临床试验后的残余血液量。这是一项前瞻性横断面研究,在一家机构进行,评估了122名患者的抽血情况。所有患者的中位每日残余血容量为11.6(四分位间距[IQR]:12.315.2)ml,入住重症监护室的患者为12.9(IQR:113.116.9)ml。我们关于每日残余血容量的研究结果表明,目前允许的有资格进行快速审查或不超过最低风险研究的血容量限制低于患者在常规医学检测中的经验。这些发现支持增加允许的血容量限制,以满足最低风险研究的监管定义,从而加快IRB对将采集血液样本的研究的审查。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。

摘要图片

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
Remnant Blood Quantification: Informing the Definition of Minimal Risk in Clinical Research

Guidelines from the Office for Human Research Protections regarding categories of research that institutional review boards (IRBs) may review through expedited procedures limit the volume of blood that can be obtained from research participants for minimal risk research purposes. As defined by the Common Rule, minimal risk research is research in which the probability and magnitude of harm or discomfort anticipated are not greater than the probability and magnitude of harm or discomfort encountered from routine clinical tests. For this study, we considered the volume of remnant blood following routine clinical tests in light of the current definition of minimal risk in research. Conducted at a single institution, this was a prospective cross-sectional study that evaluated blood draws from 122 patients. The median daily remnant blood volume was 11.6 (interquartile range [IQR]: 12.3, 15.2) ml for all patients and 12.9 (IQR: 13.1, 16.9) ml for patients admitted to the intensive care unit. Our findings regarding daily remnant blood volume suggest that the currently allowable blood-volume limits to qualify for expedited review or to qualify as not more than minimal risk research involving blood draws from nonhealthy adults are less than what patients experience in routine medical testing. These findings support permitting an increase in the allowable blood-volume limits to meet the regulatory definition of minimal risk research for obtaining expedited IRB review of studies in which blood samples will be collected.

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
Ethics & human research
Ethics & human research Social Sciences-Health (social science)
CiteScore
2.90
自引率
0.00%
发文量
35
期刊最新文献
Issue Information (Epistemic) Injustice and Resistance in Canadian Research Ethics Governance Ethical Considerations for Conducting Community-Engaged Research with Women Experiencing Homelessness and Incarcerated Women Investigating Moral Distress in Clinical Research Professionals—A Deep Dive into Troubled Waters Issue Information
×
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
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 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 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1