A human rights approach to low data reporting in clinical trials of psychiatric deep brain stimulation.
Laura Yenisa CabreraPublished in: Bioethics (2019)
The reporting of clinical trial data is necessary not only for doctors to determine treatment efficacy, but also to explore new questions without unnecessarily repeating trials, and to protect patients and the public from dangers when data are withheld. This issue is particularly salient in those trials involving invasive neurosurgical interventions, such as deep brain stimulation (DBS), for 'treatment refractory' psychiatric disorders. Using the federal database ClinicalTrials.gov, it was discovered that out of the completed or unknown-status trials related to psychiatric DBS up to November 2018, only two had submitted results to ClinicalTrials.gov. These results suggest that, despite federal requirements to report clinical trial data, reporting on psychiatric DBS trials is problematically minimal. It is argued that a human rights approach to this problem establishes a legal and ethical foundation for the need to report clinical trial results in this area.
Keyphrases
- deep brain stimulation
- clinical trial
- parkinson disease
- obsessive compulsive disorder
- electronic health record
- adverse drug
- mental health
- endothelial cells
- phase ii
- big data
- open label
- end stage renal disease
- double blind
- healthcare
- ejection fraction
- study protocol
- newly diagnosed
- chronic kidney disease
- emergency department
- phase iii
- randomized controlled trial
- decision making
- prognostic factors
- data analysis
- patient reported
- patient reported outcomes