Search

A study is presented on the issue of consent for research on biological samples and public support for one-time general consent. A search of studies on support of consent for such research from PubMed revealed that the majority of respondents support one-time general consent. Respondents came from a variety of ethnic and national groups, many different countries and were patients, research participants, family members, religious leaders and the public. The diverse nature of the sample suggests that one-time general consent would be an effect way of obtaining consent, especially is used universally. The author calls for a universal standard for obtaining consent.

The article presents six questions which people in the medical community can use to assess and appraise qualitative research. A discussion of the importance of determining whether samples used in research were appropriate to the research question, whether data in the research were collected and analyzed appropriately, whether the results of the research can be transferred to a medical setting, and whether the research adequately addresses potential ethical issue, is presented. Suggestions for further reading are offered.

The article discusses the impact of research ethics on recruitment in medical research. Research methodology and confidentiality requirements used in recruitment are described. The authors argue that confidentiality rules limit the access of researchers to potential participants and negatively impact research outcomes. The views of patients on the confidentiality of their medical information are discussed. Recommendations are made for improving methodology in medical research.

Critiques the validity and ethics of cohort studies. Benefits of cohort studies to medical research; Comparison between cohort studies and randomized trials; View that random allocation in randomized controlled trials enhances the validity of results; Risk for selection bias to influence the results of cohort studies; Creation of a valid comparison group in cohort studies; Methods for ensuring the validity of a cohort study's results.

The article presents an overview of the way authors, editors and systematic researchers should handle suspected medical research misconduct. Several groups including the committee on Publication Ethics which publish guidelines on how editors should react to suspected research misconduct are discussed. The case of Dr. Julio Cruz, whose research publications have been called into question two years after his 2005 death is presented as an example of why medical research needs to be monitored for misconduct.

The article comments on the protection of confidential patient information in medical research in Great Britain. The importance of medical records and data to health care research is highlighted. Challenges in ensuring patient anonymity and obtaining informed consent in research are discussed. Government regulation of research methodology is discussed. The author argues in favor of making patient information available to researchers while maintaining standards of confidentiality and data security.

The article reports on a decision from the periodical "Lancet" to retract a paper on stress incontinence that it had published which was written by researchers at the Medical University of Innsbruck in Austria. The periodical made the decision after it was informed by Austria's Agency for Health and Food Safety that the researchers who conducted the research featured in the paper failed to get proper ethical approval from research subjects and neglected to inform subjects about the experimental nature of their research