1
|
孔 子. Stock Material Metabolism of Urban Household Durable Goods in China’s Provinces. INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF ECOLOGY 2018. [DOI: 10.12677/ije.2018.73017] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Track Full Text] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 11/09/2022]
|
2
|
Whitney SN. Institutional review boards: A flawed system of risk management. RESEARCH ETHICS 2016. [DOI: 10.1177/1747016116649993] [Citation(s) in RCA: 7] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.9] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 11/16/2022]
Abstract
Institutional Review Boards (IRBs) and their federal overseers protect human subjects, but this vital work is often dysfunctional despite their conscientious efforts. A cardinal, but unrecognized, explanation is that IRBs are performing a specific function – the management of risk – using a flawed theoretical and practical approach. At the time of the IRB system’s creation, risk management theory emphasized the suppression of risk. Since then, scholars of governance, studying the experience of business and government, have learned that we must distinguish pure from opportunity risks. Pure risks should be suppressed. Some opportunity risks, in contrast, must be accepted if the institution is to meet its goals. Contemporary theory shows how institutions may make these decisions wisely. It also shows how a sound organizational understanding of risk, a proper locus of responsibility, and appropriate institutional oversight all contribute to effective risk management. We can apply this general theory, developed in other contexts, to the problems of the IRB system. Doing so provides a unifying explanation for IRBs’ disparate dysfunctions by spotlighting five related deficiencies in IRB theory and structure. These deficiencies are (i) inability to focus on greater risks, (ii) loss of balanced theory, (iii) inaccessibility to guidance from senior leadership, (iv) unbalanced federal oversight, and (v) inflexibility. These flaws are deeply rooted in the system, and superficial reform cannot resolve them. Congress should overhaul the system to meet contemporary standards of risk management; this would benefit subjects, scientists, and the public that needs the fruits of research.
Collapse
|
3
|
Clyburne-Sherin AVP, Thurairajah P, Kapadia MZ, Sampson M, Chan WWY, Offringa M. Recommendations and evidence for reporting items in pediatric clinical trial protocols and reports: two systematic reviews. Trials 2015; 16:417. [PMID: 26385379 PMCID: PMC4574457 DOI: 10.1186/s13063-015-0954-0] [Citation(s) in RCA: 25] [Impact Index Per Article: 2.8] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 02/26/2015] [Accepted: 09/11/2015] [Indexed: 02/06/2023] Open
Abstract
BACKGROUND Complete and transparent reporting of clinical trial protocols and reports ensures that these documents are useful to all stakeholders, that bias is minimized, and that the research is not wasted. However, current studies repeatedly conclude that pediatric trial protocols and reports are not appropriately reported. Guidelines like SPIRIT (Standard Protocol Items: Recommendations for Interventional Trials) and CONSORT (Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials) may improve reporting, but do not offer guidance on issues unique to pediatric trials. This paper reports two systematic reviews conducted to build the evidence base for the development of pediatric reporting guideline extensions: 1) SPIRIT-Children (SPIRIT-C) for pediatric trial protocols, and 2) CONSORT-Children (CONSORT-C) for pediatric trial reports. METHOD MEDLINE, the Cochrane Methodology Register, and reference lists of included studies were searched. Publications of any type were eligible if they included explicit recommendations or empirical evidence for the reporting of potential items in a pediatric protocol (SPIRIT-C systematic review) or trial report (CONSORT-C systematic review). Study characteristics, recommendations and evidence for pediatric extension items were extracted. Recurrent themes in the recommendations and evidence were identified and synthesized. All steps were conducted by two reviewers. RESULTS For the SPIRIT-C and CONSORT-C systematic reviews 366 and 429 publications were included, respectively. Recommendations were identified for 48 of 50 original reporting items and sub-items from SPIRIT, 15 of 20 potential SPIRIT-C reporting items, all 37 original CONSORT items and sub-items, and 16 of 22 potential CONSORT-C reporting items. The following overarching themes of evidence to support or refute the utility of reporting items were identified: transparency; reproducibility; interpretability; usefulness; internal validity; external validity; reporting bias; publication bias; accountability; scientific soundness; and research ethics. CONCLUSION These systematic reviews are the first to systematically gather evidence and recommendations for the reporting of specific items in pediatric protocols and trials. They provide useful and translatable evidence on which to build pediatric extensions to the SPIRIT and CONSORT reporting guidelines. The resulting SPIRIT-C and CONSORT-C will provide guidance to the authors of pediatric protocols and reports, respectively, helping to alleviate concerns of inappropriate and inconsistent reporting, and reduce research waste.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- April V P Clyburne-Sherin
- The Hospital for Sick Children, Peter Gilgan Centre for Research and Learning, SickKids Research Institute, Child Health Evaluative Sciences, 686 Bay Street, Toronto, ON, M5G 0A4, Canada.
| | - Pravheen Thurairajah
- The Hospital for Sick Children, Peter Gilgan Centre for Research and Learning, SickKids Research Institute, Child Health Evaluative Sciences, 686 Bay Street, Toronto, ON, M5G 0A4, Canada.
| | - Mufiza Z Kapadia
- The Hospital for Sick Children, Peter Gilgan Centre for Research and Learning, SickKids Research Institute, Child Health Evaluative Sciences, 686 Bay Street, Toronto, ON, M5G 0A4, Canada.
| | - Margaret Sampson
- Children's Hospital of Eastern Ontario, 401 Smyth Road, Ottawa, ON, K1H 8L1, Canada.
| | - Winnie W Y Chan
- The Hospital for Sick Children, Peter Gilgan Centre for Research and Learning, SickKids Research Institute, Child Health Evaluative Sciences, 686 Bay Street, Toronto, ON, M5G 0A4, Canada.
| | - Martin Offringa
- The Hospital for Sick Children, Peter Gilgan Centre for Research and Learning, SickKids Research Institute, Child Health Evaluative Sciences, 686 Bay Street, Toronto, ON, M5G 0A4, Canada. .,Senior Scientist and Program Head Child Health Evaluative Sciences, The Hospital for Sick Children, Peter Gilgan Centre for Research and Learning, SickKids Research Institute, 686 Bay Street, Toronto, ON, M5G 0A4, Canada.
| |
Collapse
|