This Article  • Full text  • PDF  • Send to a friend  • Save in My Folder  • Save to citation manager  • Permissions  Citing Articles  • Citation map  • Citing articles on HighWire  • Citing articles on Web of Science (29)  • Contact me when this article is cited  Related Content  • Related letters  • Similar articles in JAMA  Topic Collections  • Medical Practice  • Health Policy  • Pediatrics  • Pediatrics, Other  • Randomized Controlled Trial  • Alert me on articles by topic  Social Bookmarking   What's this?

Implications for Pediatric Research Without a Prospect of Direct Benefit

David Wendler, PhD; Leah Belsky, AB; Kimberly M. Thompson, ScD; Ezekiel J. Emanuel, MD, PhD

JAMA. 2005;294:826-832.

United States federal regulations allow institutional review boards (IRBs) to approve pediatric research that does not offer participants a "prospect of direct" benefit only when the risks are minimal or a "minor" increase over minimal. The federal regulations define minimal risks based on the risks "ordinarily encountered in daily life or during routine physical or psychological examinations or tests." In the absence of empirical data, IRB members may assume they are familiar with the risks of daily life and with the risks of routine examinations and tests and rely on their own intuitive judgment to make these assessments. Yet intuitive judgment of risk is subject to systematic errors, highlighting the need for empirical data to guide IRB review and approval of pediatric research. Current data reveal that car trips pose the highest risk of mortality ordinarily encountered by healthy children. On average, these risks are approximately 0.06 per million for children aged 14 years and younger, and approximately 0.4 per million for children aged 15 through 19 years. Riskier, but still ordinary, car trips pose an approximately 0.6 per million chance of death for children aged 14 years and younger and an approximately 4 per million chance of death for children aged 15 through 19 years. Participation in sports represents the upper end of the range of morbidity risks for healthy children. For every million instances of playing basketball, approximately 1900 individuals will sustain injuries, including 180 broken bones and 58 permanent disabilities. These findings suggest IRBs are implementing the federal minimal risk standard too cautiously in many cases. These data also raise the question of whether the federal minimal risk standard may sometimes fail to provide sufficient protection for children, prompting the need to consider alternative standards.

Author Affiliations: Department of Clinical Bioethics, NIH Clinical Center, National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, Md (Drs Wendler and Emanuel and Ms Belsky); and Department of Health Policy and Management and Kids Risk Project, School of Public Health, Harvard University, Boston, Mass (Dr Thompson).

CiteULike    Connotea    Del.icio.us    Digg    Reddit    Technorati    Twitter     What's this?

RELATED LETTERS

Pediatric Research and the Federal Minimal Risk Standard
Lainie Friedman Ross and Robert M. Nelson
JAMA. 2006;295(7):759.
EXTRACT | FULL TEXT  

Pediatric Research and the Federal Minimal Risk Standard—Reply
David Wendler, Leah Belsky, Kimberly M. Thompson, and Ezekiel J. Emanuel
JAMA. 2006;295(7):759-760.
EXTRACT | FULL TEXT  

THIS ARTICLE HAS BEEN CITED BY OTHER ARTICLES

Just a Spoonful of Sugar: Drug Safety for Pediatric Populations
Noah
J Law Med Ethics 2009;37:280-291.
 

Minimal Risk in Pediatric Research as a Function of Age
Wendler
Arch Pediatr Adolesc Med 2009;163:115-118.
ABSTRACT | FULL TEXT  

Rethinking risk in pediatric research.
Glass and Binik
J Law Med Ethics 2008;36:567-576.
 

For Want of a Nail
Vogler
Christ Bioeth 2008;14:187-205.
ABSTRACT | FULL TEXT  

Ethics review of research: in pursuit of proportionality
Edwards and Omar
J. Med. Ethics 2008;34:568-572.
ABSTRACT | FULL TEXT  

Children's and Their Parents' Views on Facing Research Risks for the Benefit of Others
Wendler and Jenkins
Arch Pediatr Adolesc Med 2008;162:9-14.
ABSTRACT | FULL TEXT  

Empirical Data and the Acceptability of Research Risk: A Commentary on the Charitable Participation Standard
Reynolds and Nelson
Arch Pediatr Adolesc Med 2008;162:88-90.
FULL TEXT  

Assessments by Patients With Schizophrenia and Psychiatrists of Relative Risk of Research Procedures
Roberts et al.
Psychiatr. Serv. 2006;57:1629-1635.
ABSTRACT | FULL TEXT  

The Radioactive Drug Research Committee: Background and Retrospective Study of Reported Research Data (1975-2004)
Suleiman et al.
JNM 2006;47:1220-1226.
ABSTRACT | FULL TEXT  

Pharmacologic management of insomnia in children and adolescents: consensus statement.
Mindell et al.
Pediatrics 2006;117:e1223-e1232.
ABSTRACT | FULL TEXT  

Pediatric Research and the Federal Minimal Risk Standard
Ross and Nelson
JAMA 2006;295:759-759.
FULL TEXT  

Do Research Procedures Pose Relatively Greater Risk for Healthy Persons Than for Persons With Schizophrenia?
Roberts et al.
Schizophr Bull 2006;32:153-158.
ABSTRACT | FULL TEXT