Avoiding the pitfalls of sponsored multicentre research in general practice.

Waldron, H A; Cookson, Richard

doi:10.1136/bmj.307.6915.1331

Cited by 15 publications

(4 citation statements)

References 10 publications

(1 reference statement)

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…An increasing number of trials of drugs or devices, most often multicentric, are industry-sponsored and financially supported. Concern has been raised about the risk that promotional interest by the industry can affect the scientific content of the trials [47][48][49] or prevent their publication if negative. 50 The participants felt that this concern is justified, and a code of prescriptions is imperative.…”

Section: Trial Reports and Meta-analysismentioning

confidence: 99%

Portal hypertension and variceal bleeding: An AASLD single topic symposium

et al. 1998

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

In June 1996, the American Association for the Study of Liver Diseases sponsored a single topic workshop combining a two-day symposium on liver microcirculation in health and diseases 1 followed by a two day consensus workshop on portal hypertension and variceal bleeding. The goal of the combined conference was to identify areas of critical importance in the understanding and treatment of portal hypertension and to foster future collaborative research projects.The portal hypertension-variceal bleeding conference consisted of eight panel discussions, each highlighting a specific topic related to evaluation and treatment of portal hypertension. The chair of each panel was charged to summarize the current state of knowledge in the field and to suggest areas for future investigation. In addition, there were three invited lecturers on specific areas of interest. This report will summarize the conclusions of each of the panels. In comparing the summary statements from the different panels, there may be differences in emphasis, definitions of endpoints, or choices for therapy. These differences are a reflection of the state of the field where areas of disagreement exist.

show abstract

Section: Trial Reports and Meta-analysismentioning

confidence: 99%

Portal hypertension and variceal bleeding: An AASLD single topic symposium

et al. 1998

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…There was no financial incentive 25 to recruit patients to the ISIS-4 study, and it was assumed that patients understood that they entered the study under the rights defined in the Declaration of Helsinki. Nonetheless, almost half of the patients who returned the questionnaire believed they would receive better care if they agreed to participate in the study, and 8% agreed to participate because of fear of refusing.…”

Section: Informed Consent and Patient Recruitment To Trialsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Patient Comprehension and Reaction to Participating in a Double-blind Randomized Clinical Trial (ISIS-4) in Acute Myocardial Infarction

Yuval

Halon²,

Merdler³

et al. 2000

Arch Intern Med

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Ethical issues surrounding the doctor-patient relationship perhaps need to be considered, 80,81 and an awareness of the ineffectiveness of results of some studies may have made GPs reluctant either to take part themselves or to recruit some patients to the trial. 82,83 It may also be difficult to find time within the consultation to explain the randomisation process and obtain informed consent.…”

Section: Recruitmentmentioning

confidence: 99%

Routine referral for radiography of patients presenting with low back pain: is patients' outcome influenced by GPs' referral for plain radiography?

Kerry¹,

Hilton²,

Patel³

et al. 2000

Health Technology Assessment

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Rink E, Lord J. Routine referral for radiography of patients presenting with low back pain: is patients' outcome influenced by GPs' referral for plain radiography ? Health Technol Assess 2000;4(20).Health Technology Assessment is indexed in Index Medicus/MEDLINE and Excerpta Medica/ EMBASE. Copies of the Executive Summaries are available from the NCCHTA website (see overleaf). NHS R&D HTA ProgrammeT he overall aim of the NHS R&D Health Technology Assessment (HTA) programme is to ensure that high-quality research information on the costs, effectiveness and broader impact of health technologies is produced in the most efficient way for those who use, manage and work in the NHS. Research is undertaken in those areas where the evidence will lead to the greatest benefits to patients, either through improved patient outcomes or the most efficient use of NHS resources.The Standing Group on Health Technology advises on national priorities for health technology assessment. Six advisory panels assist the Standing Group in identifying and prioritising projects. These priorities are then considered by the HTA Commissioning Board supported by the National Coordinating Centre for HTA (NCCHTA).This report is one of a series covering acute care, diagnostics and imaging, methodology, pharmaceuticals, population screening, and primary and community care. It was identified as a priority by the Diagnostics and Imaging Panel and funded as project number 93/17/11. The views expressed in this publication are those of the authors and not necessarily those of the Standing Group, the Commissioning Board, the Panel members or the Department of Health. The editors wish to emphasise that funding and publication of this research by the NHS should not be taken as implicit support for the recommendations for policy contained herein. In particular, policy options in the area of screening will be considered by the National Screening Committee. This Committee, chaired by the Chief Medical Officer, will take into account the views expressed here, further available evidence and other relevant considerations.Reviews in Health Technology Assessment are termed 'systematic' when the account of the search, appraisal and synthesis methods (to minimise biases and random errors) would, in theory, permit the replication of the review by others. Criteria for inclusion in the HTA monograph seriesReports are published in the HTA monograph series if (1) they have resulted from work either prioritised by the Standing Group on Health Technology, or otherwise commissioned for the HTA programme, and (2) they are of a sufficiently high scientific quality as assessed by the referees and editors.

show abstract

Avoiding the pitfalls of sponsored multicentre research in general practice.

Cited by 15 publications

References 10 publications

Portal hypertension and variceal bleeding: An AASLD single topic symposium

Portal hypertension and variceal bleeding: An AASLD single topic symposium

Patient Comprehension and Reaction to Participating in a Double-blind Randomized Clinical Trial (ISIS-4) in Acute Myocardial Infarction

Routine referral for radiography of patients presenting with low back pain: is patients' outcome influenced by GPs' referral for plain radiography?

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About