4.6 Article

Sham surgery controls in Parkinson's disease clinical trials: Views of participants

期刊

MOVEMENT DISORDERS
卷 27, 期 11, 页码 1461-1465

出版社

WILEY-BLACKWELL
DOI: 10.1002/mds.25155

关键词

sham surgery; gene therapy; Parkinson's disease; bioethics

资金

  1. Michael J. Fox Foundation for Parkinson's Research
  2. National Institute for Neurological Disorders and Stroke [R01-NS062770]
  3. CTSA award from the National Center for Research Resources [UL1 RR024160]
  4. National Center for Advancing Translational Sciences of the National Institutes of Health

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Background: Sham surgery controls are increasingly used in neurosurgical clinical trials in Parkinson's disease (PD) but remain controversial. We interviewed participants of such trials, specifically examining their understanding and attitudes regarding sham surgery. Methods: We conducted semistructured qualitative interviews with participants of 3 sham surgerycontrolled trials for PD, focusing on their understanding of sham design, their reactions to it, its impact on decision making, and their understanding of posttrial availability of the experimental intervention and its impact on decisions to participate. Results: All subjects (n = 90) understood the 2-arm design; most (86%) described the procedural differences between the arms accurately. Ninety-two percent referred to scientific or regulatory reasons as rationales for the sham control, with 62% specifically referring to the placebo effect. Ninety-one percent said posttrial availability of the experimental intervention had a strong (48%) or some (43%) influence on their decision to participate, but only 68% understood the conditions for posttrial availability. Conclusions: Most subjects in sham surgerycontrolled PD trials comprehend the sham surgery design and its rationale. Although there is room for improvement, most subjects of sham surgery trials appear to be adequately informed. (c) 2012 Movement Disorder Society

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.6
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据