FREE NEJM E-TOC    HOME   |   SUBSCRIBE   |   CURRENT ISSUE   |   PAST ISSUES   |   COLLECTIONS   |   Search Term  Advanced Search

Sign in | Get NEJM's E-Mail Table of Contents — Free | Subscribe

Previous Volume 349:629-630 August 14, 2003 Number 7 Next

	Since this article has no abstract, we have provided an extract of the first 100 words of the full text and any section headings.

	Full Text PDF PDA Full Text Purchase this article Letters Add to Personal Archive Add to Citation Manager Notify a Friend E-mail When Cited E-mail When Letters Appear PubMed Citation

On July 3, 2003, nearly a year after it first became involved, the Office for Human Research Protections (OHRP) of the Department of Health and Human Services released its decision about two disputed multicenter clinical trials of treatment for the acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS).^1,2 In a 15-page letter, the office seems to substantiate the ethical appropriateness and research design of both trials and to refute concern that participants were subjected to unnecessary risks. The OHRP does this by referring to the opinions of outside consultants whom it retained, without taking a position on the controversy itself. However, the OHRP, . . . [Full Text of this Article]

Related Letters:

The Office for Human Research Protections and the NIH
Beck R. W.
Extract | Full Text | PDF  
N Engl J Med 2003; 349:2076-2077, Nov 20, 2003. Correspondence

This article has been cited by other articles:

• Overberger, P., Pesacreta, M., Palevsky, P. M., for the VA/NIH Acute Renal Failure Trial Network, (2007). Management of Renal Replacement Therapy in Acute Kidney Injury: A Survey of Practitioner Prescribing Practices. CJASN 2: 623-630 [Abstract] [Full Text]  
• The National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute Acut, (2006). Comparison of Two Fluid-Management Strategies in Acute Lung Injury. NEJM 354: 2564-2575 [Abstract] [Full Text]  
• The National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute Acut, (2006). Pulmonary-Artery versus Central Venous Catheter to Guide Treatment of Acute Lung Injury. NEJM 354: 2213-2224 [Abstract] [Full Text]  
• DeMets, D. L, Fost, N., Powers, M. (2006). An Institutional Review Board dilemma: responsible for safety monitoring but not in control. Clin Trials 3: 142-148 [Abstract]  
• Bernard, G. R. (2005). Acute Respiratory Distress Syndrome: A Historical Perspective. Am. J. Respir. Crit. Care Med. 172: 798-806 [Abstract] [Full Text]  
• (2004). The Ethical Conduct of Clinical Research Involving Critically Ill Patients in the United States and Canada: Principles and Recommendations. Am. J. Respir. Crit. Care Med. 170: 1375-1384 [Full Text]  
• Piantadosi, C. A., Schwartz, D. A. (2004). The Acute Respiratory Distress Syndrome. ANN INTERN MED 141: 460-470 [Full Text]  
• Miller, F. G., Silverman, H. J. (2004). The Ethical Relevance of the Standard of Care in the Design of Clinical Trials. Am. J. Respir. Crit. Care Med. 169: 562-564 [Full Text]  
• Morris, A H (2004). Iatrogenic illness: a call for decision support tools to reduce unnecessary variation. Qual Saf Health Care 13: 80-81 [Full Text]  
• Beck, R. W. (2003). The Office for Human Research Protections and the NIH. NEJM 349: 2076-2077 [Full Text]