Suchergebnisse

Research on deceased organ donors has been hindered by concerns related to seeking research consent from transplant recipients. We undertook this qualitative study to elucidate solid organ transplant recipients views on organ donor research, their role in the consent for such research, and their preferences related to providing their data. We conducted interviews with 18 participants and three themes emerged from the data. The first centered around participant research literacy. The second described practical preferences of participating in research, and the third related to the connection between donor and recipient. We concluded that previously held views about the requirement for transplant recipients to have a consenting role in donor research is not always suitable.

Research to inform the care of neurologically deceased organ donors is complicated by a lack of standards for research consent. In this systematic review, we aim to describe current practices of soliciting consent for participation in prospective studies of neurologically deceased donors, including the frequency and justification for these various models of consent. Among the 74 studies included, 14 did not report on any regulatory review, and 13 did not report on the study consent procedures. Of the remaining 47 studies, 24 utilized a waiver of research consent. The most common justification for a waiver of research consent related to the fact that neurologically deceased donors are not considered human subjects. In conclusion, among studies of neurologically deceased donors, research consent models vary and are inconsistently reported. Consensus and standardization in the application of research consent models will help to advance this emerging field of research.

IMPORTANCE: The COVID-19 pandemic created the need for rapid and urgent guidance for clinicians to manage COVID-19 among patients and prevent transmission. OBJECTIVE: To appraise the quality of clinical practice guidelines (CPGs) using the National Academy of Medicine (NAM) criteria. EVIDENCE REVIEW: A search of MEDLINE, EMBASE, and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials to December 14, 2020, and a search of related articles to February 28, 2021, that included CPGs developed by societies or by government or nongovernment organizations that reported pharmacologic treatments of hospitalized patients with COVID-19. Teams of 2 reviewers independently abstracted data and assessed CPG quality using the 15-item National Guideline Clearinghouse Extent of Adherence to Trustworthy Standards (NEATS) instrument. FINDINGS: Thirty-two CPGs were included in the review. Of these, 25 (78.1%) were developed by professional societies and emanated from a single World Health Organization (WHO) region. Overall, the CPGs were of low quality. Only 7 CPGs (21.9%) reported funding sources, and 12 (37.5%) reported conflicts of interest. Only 5 CPGs (15.6%) included a methodologist, described a search strategy or study selection process, or synthesized the evidence. Although 14 CPGs (43.8%) made recommendations or suggestions for or against treatments, they infrequently rated confidence in the quality of the evidence (6 of 32 [18.8%]), described potential benefits and harms (6 of 32 [18.8%]), or graded the strength of the recommendations (5 of 32 [15.6%]). External review, patient or public perspectives, or a process for updating were rare. High-quality CPGs included a methodologist and multidisciplinary collaborations involving investigators from 2 or more WHO regions. CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: In this review, few COVID-19 CPGs met NAM standards for trustworthy guidelines. Approaches that prioritize engagement of a methodologist and multidisciplinary collaborators from at least 2 WHO regions may lead to the production of ...