This article requires a subscription to view the full text. If you have a subscription you may use the login form below to view the article. Access to this article can also be purchased.
In “AAN Position Statement: Ethical Issues in Clinical Research in Neurology,” Tolchin et al. provide guidance to AAN members about ethical issues encountered in neurologic clinical research. Dewar and Shamy note that, in addition to the topics covered by Tolchin et al., in the interest of optimizing use of resources and minimizing risks to patients, there is an ethical imperative to ensure neurologic randomized-controlled trials (RCTs) are only performed if a systematic review demonstrates there is uncertainty about the answer to a research question and there are no existing trials anticipated to potentially provide the answer. Tolchin et al. agreed that the social value and scientific validity of a RCT must be carefully considered, but refuted the requirement for a systematic review to demonstrate uncertainty about the answer to a research question before every RCT because there is merit to demonstrating whether the findings from a study can be reproduced.
In “AAN Position Statement: Ethical Issues in Clinical Research in Neurology,” Tolchin et al. provide guidance to AAN members about ethical issues encountered in neurologic clinical research. Dewar and Shamy note that, in addition to the topics covered by Tolchin et al., in the interest of optimizing use of resources and minimizing risks to patients, there is an ethical imperative to ensure neurologic randomized-controlled trials (RCTs) are only performed if a systematic review demonstrates there is uncertainty about the answer to a research question and there are no existing trials anticipated to potentially provide the answer. Tolchin et al. agreed that the social value and scientific validity of a RCT must be carefully considered, but refuted the requirement for a systematic review to demonstrate uncertainty about the answer to a research question before every RCT because there is merit to demonstrating whether the findings from a study can be reproduced.
Footnotes
Author disclosures are available upon request (journal{at}neurology.org).
- © 2021 American Academy of Neurology
AAN Members
We have changed the login procedure to improve access between AAN.com and the Neurology journals. If you are experiencing issues, please log out of AAN.com and clear history and cookies. (For instructions by browser, please click the instruction pages below). After clearing, choose preferred Journal and select login for AAN Members. You will be redirected to a login page where you can log in with your AAN ID number and password. When you are returned to the Journal, your name should appear at the top right of the page.
AAN Non-Member Subscribers
Purchase access
Disputes & Debates: Rapid online correspondence
REQUIREMENTS
If you are uploading a letter concerning an article:
You must have updated your disclosures within six months: http://submit.neurology.org
Your co-authors must send a completed Publishing Agreement Form to Neurology Staff (not necessary for the lead/corresponding author as the form below will suffice) before you upload your comment.
If you are responding to a comment that was written about an article you originally authored:
You (and co-authors) do not need to fill out forms or check disclosures as author forms are still valid
and apply to letter.
Submission specifications:
- Submissions must be < 200 words with < 5 references. Reference 1 must be the article on which you are commenting.
- Submissions should not have more than 5 authors. (Exception: original author replies can include all original authors of the article)
- Submit only on articles published within 6 months of issue date.
- Do not be redundant. Read any comments already posted on the article prior to submission.
- Submitted comments are subject to editing and editor review prior to posting.