Skip to main content
Log in

Kommentar I zum Fall: „Der Patientenwille als oberste Instanz – schwierige Umsetzung in der klinischen Forschung“

  • Fall und Kommentare
  • Published:
Ethik in der Medizin Aims and scope Submit manuscript

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Literatur

  1. King M, Nazareth I, Lampe F et al (2005) Conceptual framework and systematic review of the effects of participants’ and professionals’ preferences in randomised controlled trials. Health Technol Assess 9:1–186 (iii–iv)

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Langhof H, Strech D (2016) Off-label use, compassionate use und individuelle Heilversuche: ethische Implikationen zulassungsüberschreitender Arzneimittelanwendungen. In: Erbguth F, Jox RJ (Hrsg) Praktische Ethik der Neuromedizin. Springer, Berlin Heidelberg (in Druck)

  3. Preference Collaborative Review Group (2008) Patients’ preferences within randomised trials: systematic review and patient level meta-analysis. BMJ 337:a1864

    Article  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  4. Swift JK, Callahan JL (2009) The impact of client treatment preferences on outcome: a meta-analysis. J Clin Psychol 65:368–381

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Holger Langhof.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Langhof, H., Strech, D. Kommentar I zum Fall: „Der Patientenwille als oberste Instanz – schwierige Umsetzung in der klinischen Forschung“. Ethik Med 28, 153–155 (2016). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00481-016-0389-5

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00481-016-0389-5

Navigation