...
首页> 外文期刊>BMJ: British medical journal >Commentary: Problems with randomised consent
【24h】

Commentary: Problems with randomised consent

机译:评论:随机同意的问题

获取原文
获取原文并翻译 | 示例
   

获取外文期刊封面封底 >>

       

摘要

The study by Steiner and colleagues was undertaken using the randomised consent or Zelen's method of trial design. This method involves asking trial participants' consent to receive the treatment they have been randomised to, not to randomisation itself. The ethical issues of consent have been extensively debated in the BMJ, and I do not propose to revisit these here. Zelen's method is a scientifically useful way of evaluating some interventions, such as population screening programmes, and is extensively used in cluster trials. However, this study is a rare example of an individually randomised non-screening trial using the method. There are two versions of the design: single and double consent. In this study the authors seem to have used the single consent method, whereby only those patients allocated to the nurse-led unit were asked for consent to be transferred to the unit.
机译:施泰纳和他的同事们进行的研究使用随机同意或Zelen的方法试验设计。参与者的同意接受治疗他们被随机,不去随机本身。BMJ同意都进行了广泛的讨论,我不建议重新考虑这些。Zelen的科学方法是一种有效的方式评估一些干预措施,如人口筛查项目,广泛用于集群试验。单独一个随机的例子non-screening试验使用的方法。两个版本的设计:单引号和双同意。只使用单一同意方法,这些病人分配给护士让单位被要求同意转移到吗单位。

著录项

相似文献

  • 外文文献
  • 中文文献
  • 专利
获取原文

客服邮箱:kefu@zhangqiaokeyan.com

京公网安备:11010802029741号 ICP备案号:京ICP备15016152号-6 六维联合信息科技 (北京) 有限公司©版权所有
  • 客服微信

  • 服务号