Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Ethics, Outcome Variables and Clinical Scales: The Clinician’s Point of View

  • Chapter
Clinical Trials in Neurology

Abstract

“Ethics” in the context of medical research refers to a code of moral obligations towards not only patients but also colleagues and the (scientific) community. Some important rules for conduct of scientific research, e.g. clinical trials, arise from these obligations. Occasionally there may be a conflict between the different kinds of loyalty that medical scientists are supposed to cultivate. Obviously the obligations towards individual patients should predominate in such instances. In terms of the Declaration of Helsinki: “Concern for the interest of the subject must always prevail over the interests of science and society” [1,2]. The ethical aspects of research in neurology in no way differ from those in most other branches of medicine.

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

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 169.00
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 299.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD 219.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Vinuela FV, Debrun GM, Fox AJ, Girvin JP, Peerless SJ. Dominant-hemisphere arteriovenous malformations: therapeutic embolization with isobutyl-2-cyanoacrylate. AJNR 1983; 4: 959–966.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  2. Kayembe KN, Sasahara M, Hazama F. Cerebral aneurysms and variations in the circle of Willis. Stroke 1984; 15: 846–850.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  3. Warlow C. Carotid endarterectomy: does it work? Stroke 1984; 15: 1068–1076.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  4. World Medical Association. Human experimentation. Code of ethics of the world medical association — Declaration of Helsinki. BMJ 1964;ii:1977–1979.

    Google Scholar 

  5. Taylor KM, Kelner M. Informed consent: the physician’s perspective. Soc Sci Med 1987; 24: 135–143.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  6. Oddens BJ, Algra A, Van Gijn J. [How much information is retained by participants in clinical trials?] Hoe goed zijn deelnemers aan een klinisch onderzoek geinformeerd? Ned Tijdschr Geneeskd 1992; 136: 2272–2276.

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  7. Cassileth BR, Lusk EJ, Miller DS, Hurwitz S. Attitudes towards clinical trials among patients and the public. JAMA 1982; 248: 968–970.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  8. Mattson ME, Curb JD, McArdle R, the AMIS and BHAT research groups. Participation in a clinical trial: the patients’ point of view. Control Clin Trials 1985; 6: 156–167.

    Google Scholar 

  9. Albert T, Chadwick S. How readable are practice leaflets? BMJ 1992; 305: 1266–1268.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  10. Roth LH, Lidz CW, Meisel A, et al. Competency to decide about treatment or research–an overview of some empirical data. Int J Law Psychiatry 1982; 5: 29–50.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  11. Taylor PJ. Consent, competency and ECT: a psychiatrist’s view. J Med Ethics 1983; 9: 146–151.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  12. Antiplatelet Trialists’ Collaboration. Collaborative overview of randomised trials of antiplatelet therapy. I. Prevention of death, myocardial infarction, and stroke by prolonged antiplatelet therapy in various categories of patients. BMJ 1994; 308: 81–106.

    Google Scholar 

  13. Schwartz D, Lellouch J. Explanatory and pragmatic attitudes in therapeutical trials. J Chronic Dis 1967; 20: 637–648.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  14. Bogousslaysky J. Acute stroke trials: from Morass to Nirvana? Cerebrovasc Dis 1995; 5: 3–6.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Van Gijn J. Thrombolysis in ischemic stroke: Double or quits? Circulation 1996; 93: 1616–1617.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Emerson SS. Stopping a clinical trial very early based on unplanned interim analyses: A group sequential approach. Biometrics 1995; 51: 1152–1162.

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  17. The Dutch TIA Trial Study Group. A comparison of two doses of aspirin (30 mg vs 283 mg a day) in patients after a transient ischemic attack or minor ischemic stroke. N Engl J Med 1991; 325: 1261–1266.

    Google Scholar 

  18. Vermeulen M, Lindsay KW, Murray GD, et al. Antifibrinolytic treatment in subarachnoid hemorrhage. N Engl J Med 1984; 311: 432–437.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  19. Van Gijn J, Algra A. Ticlopidine, trials, and torture [editorial comment]. Stroke 1994; 25: 1097–1098.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Counsell C, Warlow C, Sandercock P, Fraser H, Van Gijn J. The Cochrane Collaboration Stroke Review Group. Meeting the need for systematic reviews in stroke care. Stroke 1995; 26: 498502.

    Google Scholar 

  21. Kohn A. False prophets - fraud and error in science and medicine. Oxford: Basil Blackwell, 1986.

    Google Scholar 

  22. European Carotid Surgery Trialists’ Collaborative Group. MRC European Carotid Surgery Trial: interim results for symptomatic patients with severe (70–99%) or with mild (0–29%) carotid stenosis. Lancet 1991; 337: 1235–1243.

    Google Scholar 

  23. EAFT (European Atrial Fibrillation Trial) Study Group. Secondary prevention in non-rheumatic atrial fibrillation after transient ischaemic attack or minor stroke. Lancet 1993; 342: 1255–1262.

    Google Scholar 

  24. Fergus M, Stephens R. Marketing clinical trials. Lancet 1996; 348: 111–112.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  25. Stein RE, Gortmaker SL, Perrin EC, et al. Severity of illness: concepts and measurements. Lancet 1987;íI:1506–1509.

    Google Scholar 

  26. World Health Organization. International classification of impairments, disabilities, and handicaps. Geneva: WHO, 1980.

    Google Scholar 

  27. Hankey GJ, Warlow CP, Sellar RJ. Cerebral angiographic risk in mild cerebrovascular disease. Stroke 1990; 21: 209222.

    Google Scholar 

  28. The Canadian Cooperative Study Group. A randomised trial of aspirin and sulfinpyrazone in threatened stroke. N Engl J Med 1978; 299: 53–59.

    Google Scholar 

  29. Antiplatelet Trialists’ Collaboration. Secondary prevention of vascular disease by prolonged antiplatelet treatment. BMJ 1988; 296: 320–331.

    Google Scholar 

  30. Sackett DL, Gent M. Controversy in counting and attributing events in clinical trials. N Engl J Med 1979; 301: 1410–1412.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  31. Heyman A, Wilkinson WE, Hurwitz BJ, et al. Risk of ischemic heart disease in patients with TIA. Neurology 1984; 34: 626630.

    Google Scholar 

  32. Myerburg RJ, Castellanos A. Cardiac arrest and sudden cardiac death. In: Braunwald E, editor. Heart disease: a textbook of cardiovascular medicine. Philadelphia: Saunders, 1986;742777.

    Google Scholar 

  33. Phillips LH, Whisnant JP, Reagan TJ. Sudden death from stroke. Stroke 1977; 8: 392–395.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  34. Miller LS, Miyamoto AT. Computed tomography: its potential as a predictor of functional recovery following stroke. Arch Phys Med Rehabil 1979; 60: 108–109.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  35. Van Gijn J, Warlow CP. Down with stroke scales! Cerebrovasc Dis 1992; 2: 244–246.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  36. Wood PNH, Badley EM. People with disabilities: toward acquiring information which reflects more sensitively their problems and needs. New York: World Rehabilitation Fund, 1980.

    Google Scholar 

  37. Granger CV, Dewis LS, Peters NC, Sherwood CC, Barrett JE. Stroke rehabilitation: analysis of repeated Barthel index measures. Arch Phys Med Rehabil 1979; 60: 14–17.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  38. Collin C, Wade DT, Davies S, Home V. The Barthel ADL Index: a reliability study. Int Disabil Stud 1988; 10: 61–63.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  39. Wade DT, Langton Hewer R. Functional abilities after stroke: measurement, natural history and prognosis. J Neurol Neurosurg Psychiatry 1987; 50: 177–182.

    Google Scholar 

  40. Chino N. Efficacy of Barthel index in evaluating activities of daily living in Japan, the United States, and United Kingdom. Stroke 1990;21:íI64–5.

    Google Scholar 

  41. Task force on stroke impairment, task force on stroke disability, and task force on stroke handicap. Symposium recommendations for methodology in stroke outcome research. Stroke 1990; 21 (Suppl 2): 68–73.

    Google Scholar 

  42. Hutchinson TA, Boyd NF, Feinstein AR, Gonda A, Hollomby D, Rowat B. Scientific problems in clinical scales, as demonstrated in the Karnofsky index of performance status. J Chronic Dis 1979; 32: 661–666.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  43. van Swieten JC, Koudstaal PJ, Visser MC, Schouten HJ, Van Gijn J. Interobserver agreement for the assessment of handicap in stroke patients. Stroke 1988; 19: 604–607.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  44. Bamford JM, Sandercock PA, Warlow CP, Slattery J. Interobserver agreement for the assessment of handicap in stroke patients [letter]. Stroke 1989; 20: 828.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  45. Jennett B, Bond M. Assessment of outcome after severe brain damage: a practical scale. Lancet 1975;í:480–484.

    Google Scholar 

  46. Maas AI, Braakman R, Schouten HJ, Minderhoud JM, van Zomeren AH. Agreement between physicians on assessment of outcome following severe head injury. J Neurosurg 1983; 58: 321–325.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  47. Italian Acute Stroke Study Group. Haemodilution in acute stroke: results of the Italian haemodilution trial. Lancet 1988;í: 318–321.

    Google Scholar 

  48. Carey RG, Posavac EJ. Program evaluation of a physical medicine and rehabilitation unit: a new approach. Arch Phys Med Rehabil 1978; 59: 330–337.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  49. Carey RG, Posavac EJ. Rehabilitation program evaluation using a revised level of rehabilitation scale (LORS-II). Arch Phys Med Rehabil 1982; 63: 367–370.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  50. Spitzer WO. State of science 1986: quality of life and functional status as target variables for research. J Chronic Dis 1987; 40: 465–471.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  51. Stensman R. Severely mobility-disabled people assess the quality of their lives. Scand J Rehabil Med 1985; 17: 87–99.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  52. Bergner M, Bobbitt RA, Carter WB, Gilson BS. The Sickness Impact Profile: development and final revision of a health status measure. Med Care 1981; 19: 787–805.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  53. Hunt SM, McKenna SP, McEwen J, Backett EM, Williams J, Papp E. A quantitative approach to perceived health status: a validation study. J Epidemiol Community Health 1980; 34: 281–286.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  54. Ahlsiö B, Britton M, Murray V, Theorell T. Disablement and quality of life after stroke. Stroke 1984; 15: 886–890.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  55. Niemi ML, Laaksonen R, Kotila M, Waltimo O. Quality of life 4 years after stroke. Stroke 1988; 19: 1101–1107.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  56. von Neumann J, Morgenstern O. Theory of games and economic behaviour. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1944.

    Google Scholar 

  57. Torrance GW. The measurement of health state utilities for economic appraisal. J Health Econ 1986; 5: 1–30.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  58. Sackett DL, Torrance GW. The utility of different health states as perceived by the general public. J Chronic Dis 1978; 31: 697704.

    Google Scholar 

  59. EuroQuol Group. Euroquol–a new facility for the measurement of health-related quality of life. Health Policy 1990; 16: 199–208.

    Google Scholar 

  60. Fletcher AE, Hunt BM, Bulpitt CJ. Evaluation of quality of life in clinical trials of cardiovascular disease. J Chronic Dis 1987; 40: 557–569.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  61. Wulff HR. Rational diagnosis and treatment — an introduction to clinical decision-making. Oxford: Blackwell, 1981.

    Google Scholar 

  62. Teasdale G, Jennett B. Assessment of coma and impaired consciousness — a practical scale. Lancet 1974;ii:81–84.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Authors
  1. E. Buskens
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. J. van Gijn
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. Neuromuscular Unit, West London Neurosciences Centre, 1st Floor Pilot Wing, Charing Cross Hospital, Fulham Palace Road, W6 8RF, London, UK

    Roberto J. Guiloff MD, FRCP (Consultant Neurologist) (Consultant Neurologist)

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2001 Springer-Verlag London

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Buskens, E., van Gijn, J. (2001). Ethics, Outcome Variables and Clinical Scales: The Clinician’s Point of View. In: Guiloff, R.J. (eds) Clinical Trials in Neurology. Springer, London. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4471-3787-0_3

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4471-3787-0_3

  • Publisher Name: Springer, London

  • Print ISBN: 978-1-84996-856-0

  • Online ISBN: 978-1-4471-3787-0

  • eBook Packages: Springer Book Archive

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation