Research Ethics and N-of-1 Trials

  • Andrew Crowden
  • Gordon Guyatt
  • Nikola Stepanov
  • Sunita Vohra

Abstract

Some N-of-1 trials are conducted as part of clinical care, others are developed as research. For those that are research, unless they are deemed exempt from formal review, a relevant Human Research Ethics Committee or Institutional Review Board should review specific projects before they are approved. N-of-1 trials should also be authorized by institutions before commencing. The level of risk to the patient/participant should guide and determine whether a particular project is exempt from review, subject to a low/negligible risk review, or should be reviewed by a full committee. Research ethics reviewers must develop a heightened ethical sensitivity toward ensuring that a misguided approach to N-of-1 review does not occur. Clinical researchers, institutions and research review committees, should recognize the continuum of clinical care and clinical research, in order to set and act from explicit standards which are consistent with the clinical practice – clinical research continuum.

Keywords

Research ethics N-of-1 trials Clinical research continuum Bias Respect Merit Integrity Justice Beneficence Informed consent Risk assessment Intent Institutional Review Boards Human Research Ethics Committees 

References

  1. Appelbaum PS, Lidz C, Meisel A (1987) Informed consent. Oxford University Press, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  2. Beauchamp T, Childress J (2001) Principles of biomedical ethics. Oxford University Press, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  3. Brignardello-Petersen R, Ioannidis JPA, Tomlinson G, Guyatt G (2014) Surprising results of randomized trials. In: Guyatt G, Meade MO, Cook DJ, Rennie D (eds) Users’ guides to the medical literature: a manual for evidence-based clinical practice, 2nd edn. McGraw-Hill, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  4. Crowden A (2013) Chapter 6: ethics and indigenous health care: cultural competencies, protocols and integrity. In: Hampton R, Toombs M (eds) Indigenous Australians and health: the wombat in the room. Oxford University Press, South Melbourne, Victoria, Australia, pp 114–129Google Scholar
  5. Evans I, Thornton H, Chalmers I, Glasziou P (2013) Testing treatments: better research for better healthcare, 2nd edn. Pinter &Martin Ltd., LondonGoogle Scholar
  6. Faden R, Beauchamp T, King N (1986) A history and theory of informed consent. Oxford University Press, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  7. Gabriel SE, Normand SL (2012) Getting the methods right – the foundation of patient-centered outcomes research. N Engl J Med 367(9):787–790CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. Guyatt G (1996) Clinical care and clinical research: a false dichotomy. In: Daly J (ed) Ethical intersections: health research, methods and researcher responsibility. Allen and Unwin, Sydney, pp 66–73Google Scholar
  9. Guyatt GH, Sackett DL, Taylor DW et al (1986) Determining optimal therapy-randomised trials in individual patients. N Engl J Med 314:889–892CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. Keech A, Gebski V, Pike R (2007) Interpreting and reporting clinical trials. A guide to the consort statement and the principles of randomised controlled trials. Australian Medical Publishing, SydneyGoogle Scholar
  11. Kerridge I, Lowe M, Stewart C (2013) Ethics and law for the health professions. The Federation Press, LeichardtGoogle Scholar
  12. Kottow M (2009) Clinical and research ethics as moral strangers. Arch Immunol Ther Exp (Warsz) 57:157–164CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Kravitz R, Duan N (eds) (2014) Design and Implementation of N-of-1 Trials: a user’s guide, Agency for healthcare research and quality, US Department of Health and Human Services, Feb 2014Google Scholar
  14. Lantos J (1994) Ethical issues – how can we distinguish clinical research from innovative therapy? Am J Pediatr Hematol/Oncol 16:72–75Google Scholar
  15. Lewens T (2006) Distinguishing treatment from research: a functional approach. J Med Ethics 32:424–429PubMedCentralCrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  16. Parfitt D (2013) On what matters, vol 1. Oxford University Press, Oxford/New York, p 178Google Scholar
  17. Punja S, Vohra S, Eslick I, Duan N (2014) An ethical framework for N-of-1 trials: clinical care, quality improvement, or human subjects research? In: Kravitz RL, Duan N (eds) Design and implementation of N-of-1 trials: a user’s guide. AHRQ Publication No. 13(14)-EHC122-EF. Rockville, pp 13–22. www.effectivehealthcare.ahrq.gov/N-1-Trials.cfm
  18. Stepanov N (2014) Questioning the boundaries of parental rights: exploring children’s rights, the best interests standard, and parental consent to paediatric non-therapeutic experimental research. Doctor of Philosophy PhD, The University of MelbourneGoogle Scholar
  19. Stepanov N, Smith MK (2013) Double standards in special medical research: questioning the discrepancy between requirements for medical research involving incompetent adults and medical research involving children. J Law Med 21:47–52PubMedGoogle Scholar
  20. Tate RL, Perdices M, Rosenkoetter U et al (2013) Revision of a method quality rating scale for single-case experimental designs and n-of-1 trials: the 15-item risk of bias in N-of-1 trials (RoBiNT) scale. Neuropsychol Rehabil 23(5):619–638CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2015

Authors and Affiliations

  • Andrew Crowden
    • 1
  • Gordon Guyatt
    • 2
  • Nikola Stepanov
    • 1
  • Sunita Vohra
    • 3
  1. 1.School of MedicineThe University of QueenslandBrisbaneAustralia
  2. 2.McMaster UniversityHamiltonCanada
  3. 3.Department of PediatricsUniversity of AlbertaEdmontonCanada

Personalised recommendations