Index
Module 2 • Research Methods
Research Design, Biostatistics & Literature Evaluation
78%
Core Content
Research Design, Biostatistics & Literature Evaluation
Julie E. Farrar ~3 min read Module 2 of 20
25
/ 32

Research Design, Biostatistics, and Literature Evaluation

REFERENCES

Introduction

Angus DC, Barnato AE, Linde-Zwirble WT, et al. Use

of intensive care at the end of life in the United States: an

epidemiologic study. Crit Care Med. 2004;32(3):638-643.

https://doi.org/10.1097/01.ccm.0000114816.62331.08

Coopersmith CM, Wunsch H, Fink MP, et al. A compar-

ison of critical care research funding and the financial

burden of critical illness in the United States. Crit Care

Med.

2012;40(4):1072-1079.

https://doi.org/10.1097/

ccm.0b013e31823c8d03

Bioethics

DeRenzo EG, Moss J, Singer EA. Implications of the

revised common rule for human participant research.

Chest.

2019;155(2):272-278.

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.

chest.2018.09.022

Emanuel EJ, Wendler D, Grady C. What makes clinical

research ethical? JAMA. 2000;283(2):2701-2711. https://

doi.org/10.1001/jama.283.20.2701

Freedman B. Equipoise and the ethics of clinical

research. N Engl J Med. 1987;317(3):141-145. https://doi.

org/10.1056/nejm198707163170304

Hodge JG Jr, Gostin LO. Revamping the US federal

common rule: modernizing human participant research

regulations. JAMA. 2017;317(15):1521-1522. https://doi.

org/10.1001/jama.2017.1633

Koski G. Ethics, science, and oversight of critical care

research: the Office for Human Research Protections.

Am J Respir Crit Care Med. 2004;169(9):982-986.

https://doi.org/10.1164/rccm.2402022

National Commission for the Protection of Human

Subjects of Biomedical and Behavioral Research. The

Belmont Report: Ethical Principles and Guidelines for

the Protection of Human Subjects i n R e s e a rc h . US

G ove r n m e n t P r i n t i n g O f f i c e; 19 79.

Vitti JN, Vitti R, Chu K, Mellis S. The ethics of clini-

cal research in the era of COVID-19. Front Public

Health.

2024;12:1359654.

https://doi.org/10.3389/

fpubh.2024.1359654

Practical Challenges to Critical Care Research

Clark D 3rd, Woods J, Patki D, et al. Digital informed

consent in a rural and low-income population. JAMA

Cardiol.

2020;5(7):845-847.

https://doi.org/10.1001/

jamacardio.2020.0984

Coppolino M, Ackerson L. Do surrogate decision mak-

ers provide accurate consent for intensive care research?

Chest.

2001;119(2):603-612.

https://doi.org/10.1378/

chest.119.2.603

Gaille M, Horn R. Solidarity and autonomy: two con-

flicting values in English and French health care and

bioethics debates? Theor Med Bioeth. 2016;37(6):441-

446. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11017-016-9391-7

Gaudry S, Hajage D, Schortgen F, et al. Initiation strate-

gies for renal-replacement therapy in the intensive care

unit. N Engl J Med. 2016;375(2):122-133. https://doi.

org/10.1056/nejmoa1603017

Goligher EC, DouflΓ© G, Fan E. Update in mechanical

ventilation, sedation, and outcomes 2014. Am J Respir
Crit Care Med. 2015;191(12):1367-1373. https://doi.

org/10.1164/rccm.201502-0346up

Grady C. Enduring and emerging challenges of informed

consent. N Engl J Med. 2015;372(9):855-862. https://doi.

org/10.1056/nejmra1411250

Harhay MO, Wagner J, Ratcliffe SJ, et al. Outcomes and

statistical power in adult critical care randomized trials.

Am J Respir Crit Care Med. 2014;189(12):1469-1478.

https://doi.org/10.1164/rccm.201401-0056cp

Ho JD, Cole JB, Klein LR, et al. The Hennepin

Ketamine Study Investigators’ reply. Prehosp Disaster

Med.

2019;34(2):111-113.

https://doi.org/10.1017/

s1049023x19000219

Jeste DV, Palmer BW, Appelbaum PS, et al. A new brief

instrument for assessing decisional capacity for clini-

cal research. Arch Gen Psychiatry. 2007;64(8):966-974.

https://doi.org/10.1001/archpsyc.64.8.966

Jose R, Rooney R, Nagisetty N, Davis R, Hains D.

Biorepository and integrative genomics initiative:

designing and implementing a preliminary platform for

predictive, preventive and personalized medicine at a

pediatric hospital in a historically disadvantaged com-

munity in the USA. EPMA J. 2018;9(3):225-234. https://

doi.org/10.1007/s13167-018-0141-y

Kass N, Pronovost PJ, Sugarman J, Goeschel CA,

Lubomski LH, Faden R. Controversy and qual-

ity improvement: lingering questions about ethics,

Ψ΄Ψ±Ψ­ Ψ§Ω„ΩΩŠΨ―ΩŠΩˆ Ψ§Ω„ΨͺΨΉΩ„ΩŠΩ…ΩŠ β€” Ω…Ψ²Ψ§Ω…Ω†Ψ© Ω…ΨΉ Ψ§Ω„Ω€ PDF
Ψ¨Ψ―Ψ‘ Ψ§Ω„ΨͺΨ΄ΨΊΩŠΩ„ Ω…Ω†: Ψ§Ω„Ψ―Ω‚ΩŠΩ‚Ψ© 24 فΨͺΨ­ ΨΉΩ„Ω‰ YouTube