Advertisement

Ethical Considerations in Periodontal Research

  • Alexandrina L. Dumitrescu
Chapter
  • 53 Downloads

Abstract

Recent clinical research is conducted based on bioethical consideration of human subjects. The Ethical Guidelines for Clinical Studies (EGCS) form the standard for this ‘subject protection’. In current clinical research, consideration of subject rights and life is held more important than the scientific and social value of the research. We describe herein the major revisions and history of ethical considerations leading up to implementation of the revised EGCS on April 1, 2009. The obligations of clinical researchers regarding ethical studies and training and enrolment in insurance for subject compensation have been added to these latest guidelines. The role of ethics review boards, which supervise whether clinical researchers are actively performing subject protection, is also becoming extremely important.

References

  1. Alderson P, Goodey C. Theories of consent. BMJ. 1998;317:1313–5.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Barnett ML. Ethical issues in sponsored clinical research. J Dent Res. 1995;74:1129–32.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Belmont Report: Office of Human Subjects Research. The Belmont report: ethical principles and guidelines for the protection of human subjects of research. 2011. Available at: http://ohsr.od.nih.gov/guidelines/belmont.html. Accessed 10 Dec 2011.
  4. Bhutta ZA. Ethics in international health research: a perspective from the developing world. Bull World Health Organ. 2002;80:114–20.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. Brody BA. Making informed consent meaningful. IRB. 2001;23(5):1–5.  http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed?term=Brody%20BA.%20Making%20informed%20consent%20meaningful
  6. Brody BA, McCullough LB, Sharp RR. Consensus and controversy in clinical research ethics. JAMA. 2005;294:1411–4.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Cahana A, Hurst SA. Voluntary informed consent in research and clinical care: an update. Pain Pract. 2008;8:446–51.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Campbell FA, Goldman BD, Boccia ML, Skinner M. The effect of format modifications and reading comprehension on recall of informed consent information by low-income parents: a comparison of print, video, and computer-based presentations. Patient Educ Couns. 2004;53:205–16.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Christiansen SL. Ethical and legal guidance in biomedical publishing: the AMA manual of style, tenth edition. Chest. 2008;134:1344–6.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Council for International Organizations of Medical Sciences. International ethical guidelines for biomedical research involving human subjects. Geneva: Council for International Organizations of Medical Sciences; 1993.Google Scholar
  11. Dresden GM, Levitt MA. Modifying a standard industry clinical trial consent form improves patient information retention as part of the informed consent process. Acad Emerg Med. 2001;8:246–52.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Edward SJ, Stevens AJ, Braunholtz DA, Lilford RJ, Swift T. The ethics of placebo-controlled trials: a comparison of inert and active placebo controls. World J Surg. 2005;29:610–4.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. EMEA Committee for Medicinal Products for Human Use. Guideline on data monitoring committees. 2005. Available at: http://www.ema.europa.eu/docs/en_GB/document_library/Scientific_guideline/2009/09/WC500003635.pdf. Accessed 10 Dec 2011
  14. Endacott R. Clinical research 2: legal and ethical issues in research. Intensive Crit Care Nurs. 2004;20(5):313–5.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Erler CJ, Thompson CB. Part II: ethics, human rights, and clinical research. Air Med J. 2008;27:110–3.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Ellen RP, Singleton R. Human rights and ethical considerations in oral health research. J Can Dent Assoc. 2008 Jun;74(5):439a–439dGoogle Scholar
  17. Faggion CM. Policies of dental journals for reporting and monitoring authorship and contributorship. Br Dent J. 2011;211:223–7.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Falagas ME, Korbila IP, Giannopoulou KP, Kondilis BK, Peppas G. Informed consent: how much and what do patients understand? Am J Surg. 2009;198:420–35.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Flanagin A, Carey LA, Fontanarosa PB, Phillips SG, Pace BP, Lundberg GD, Rennie D. Prevalence of articles with honorary authors and ghost authors in peer-reviewed medical journals. JAMA. 1998;280:222–4.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Flory J, Emanuel E. Interventions to improve research participants’ understanding in informed consent for research: a systematic review. JAMA. 2004;292:1593–601.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Freedman B. Equipoise and the ethics of clinical research. N Engl J Med. 1987;317:141–5.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Grant AM, Altman DG, Babiker AB, Campbel MK, Clemens FJ, Darbyshire JH, Elbourne DR, McLeer SK, Parmar MKB, Pocock SJ, Spiegelhalter DJ, Sydes MR, Walker AF, Wallace SA, the DAMOCLES study group. Issues in data monitoring and interim analysis of trials. Health Technol Assess. 2005;9:1–235.Google Scholar
  23. Greco D, Diniz NM. Conflicts of interest in research involving human beings. J Int Bioethique. 2008;19(143–54):202–3.Google Scholar
  24. Hicks LK, Laupacis A, Slutsky AS. A primer on data safety monitoring boards: mission, methods, and controversies. Intensive Care Med. 2007;33:1815–8.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Human D, Fluss SS. The World Medical Association’s Declaration of Helsinki: historical and contemporary perspectives. 2001. Available at: http://www.wma.net/en/20activities/10ethics/10helsinki/draft_historical_contemporary_perspectives.pdf. Accessed 9 Dec 2011.
  26. Iverson C, Christiansen S, Flanagin A, et al. AMA manual of style: a guide for authors and editors. 10th ed. New York: Oxford University Press; 2007.Google Scholar
  27. Jeffcoat MK. A well-founded trust: a seven-tier defense against scientific misconduct. J Am Dent Assoc. 2002;133(7):804–6.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  28. Jefford M, Moore R. Improvement of informed consent and the quality of consent documents. Lancet Oncol. 2008;9(5):485–93.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Jefford M, Mileshkin L, Raunow H, et al. Satisfaction with the decision to participate in cancer clinical trials (CCT) is high, but understanding is a problem. J Clin Oncol. 2005;23:60–7.Google Scholar
  30. Kegley JA. Challenges to informed consent. EMBO Rep. 2004;5:832–6.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Kerr C, Robinson E, Stevens A, Braunholtz D, Edwards S, Lilford R. Randomisation in trials: do potential trial participants understand it and find it acceptable? J Med Ethics. 2004;30:80–4.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Kim SY, Caine ED, Currier GW, Leibovici A, Ryan JM. Assessing the competence of persons with Alzheimer’s disease in providing informed consent for participation in research. Am J Psychiatry. 2001;158:712–7.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Lo B. Addressing ethical issues. In: Hulley SB, Cummings SR, Browner WS, Grady DG, Thomas B, Newman TB, editors. Designing clinical research. 3rd ed. Philadelphia: Lippincott Williams & Wilkins; 2006. p. 225–39.Google Scholar
  34. Macklin R. Understanding informed consent. Acta Oncol. 1999;38:83–7.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Mann H. Extensions and refinements of the equipoise concept in international clinical research: would Benjamin Freedman approve? Am J Bioeth. 2006;6:67–9.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  36. Michael K, Paasche-Orlow, Holly A, Taylor, Frederick L. Brancati, Readability Standards for Informed-Consent Forms as Compared with Actual Readability. NEJM. 2003;348:721–726.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  37. Morin K, Rakatansky H, Riddick Jr FA, Morse LJ, O’Bannon 3rd JM, Goldrich MS, Ray P, Weiss M, Sade RM, Spillman MA. Managing conflicts of interest in the conduct of clinical trials. JAMA. 2002;287:78–84.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Mowatt G, Shirran L, Grimshaw JM, Rennie D, Flanagin A, Yank V, MacLennan G, Gøtzsche PC, Bero LA. Prevalence of honorary and ghost authorship in Cochrane reviews. JAMA. 2002;287:2769–71.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Nicholl J. The ethics of research ethics committees. BMJ. 2000;320(7243).Google Scholar
  40. Office for Protection from Research Risks. Protection of human subjects, 45 CFR 46. Office for Protection from Research Risks Reports, Federal Register. 1996.Google Scholar
  41. Paasche-Orlow MK, Paasche-Orlow MK, Taylor HA, Brancati FL. Readability standards for informed-consent forms as compared with actual readability. N Engl J Med. 2003;348:721–6.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Pandiya A. Readability and comprehensibility of informed consent forms for clinical trials. Perspect Clin Res. 2010;1:98–100.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  43. Pitak-Arnnop P, Sader R, Hervé C, Dhanuthai K, Bertrand JC, Hemprich A. Reporting of ethical protection in recent oral and maxillofacial surgery research involving human subjects. Int J Oral Maxillofac Surg. 2009;38:707–12.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Responsibilities of the Office of Human Subjects Research (OHSR). 2011. Available at: http://ohsr.od.nih.gov/info/sheet1.html. Accessed 10 Dec 2011.
  45. Rice TW. The historical, ethical, and legal background of human-subjects research. Respir Care. 2008;53:1325–9.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  46. Rivera R, Borasky D, Rice R, Carayon F, Wong E. Informed consent: an international researchers’ perspective. Am J Public Health. 2007;97:25–30.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Robinson EJ, Kerr C, Stevens A, Lilford R, Braunholtz D, Edwards S. Lay conceptions of the ethical and scientific justifications for random allocation in clinical trials. Soc Sci Med. 2004;58:811–24.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Robinson EJ, Kerr CE, Stevens AJ, Lilford RJ, Braunholtz DA, Edwards SJ, Beck SR, Rowley MG. Lay public’s understanding of equipoise and randomisation in randomised controlled trials. Health Technol Assess. 2005;9:1–192.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  49. Sekine T, Shimada M. Protection of human subjects in medical research: from the viewpoint of historical development of ethical regulations. Nihon Ishigaku Zasshi. 2011;57:63–70.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  50. Silverman HJ, Luce JM, Lanken PN, et al. Recommendations for informed consent forms for critical care clinical trials. Crit Care Med. 2005;33:867–82.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Slutsky AS, Lavery JV. Data safety and monitoring boards. N Engl J Med. 2004;350:1143–7.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Smith R. The trouble with medical journals. J R Soc Med. 2006;99:115–9.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. United States Department of Health and Human Services, Food and Drug Administration. 2006. Guidance for clinical trial sponsors. Establishment and operation of clinical trial data monitoring committees. Available at: http://www.fda.gov/downloads/RegulatoryInformation/Guidances/UCM127073.pdf. Accessed 10 Dec 2011.
  54. van der Graaf R, van Delden JJ. Equipoise should be amended, not abandoned. Clin Trials. 2011;8:408–16.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Verástegui EL. Consenting of the vulnerable: the informed consent procedure in advanced cancer patients in Mexico. BMC Med Ethics. 2006;7:E13.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Wislar JS, Flanagin A, Fontanarosa PB, Deangelis CD. Honorary and ghost authorship in high impact biomedical journals: a cross sectional survey. BMJ. 2011;343:d6128.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Wolf LE, Lo B. Association of Professors of Medicine. Ethical issues in clinical research: an issue for all internists. Am J Med. 2000;109:82–5.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. World Medical Association declaration of Helsinki. Recommendations guiding physicians in biomedical research involving human subjects. JAMA. 1997;277:925–6.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. World Medical Association. Declaration of Helsinki. 2011. Available at: http://www.wma.net/en/60about/70history/01declarationHelsinki/. Accessed 9 Dec 2011.

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2012

Authors and Affiliations

  • Alexandrina L. Dumitrescu
    • 1
    • 2
  1. 1.Department of PeriodontologyUniversity of Tromsø Institute of Clinical DentistryTromsøNorway
  2. 2.Private practiceBucharestRomania

Personalised recommendations