Show simple item record

Ethics of sham surgery: Perspective of patients

dc.contributor.authorFrank, Samuel A.en_US
dc.contributor.authorWilson, Renee M.en_US
dc.contributor.authorHolloway, Robert G.en_US
dc.contributor.authorZimmerman, Carolen_US
dc.contributor.authorPeterson, Derick R.en_US
dc.contributor.authorKieburtz, Karlen_US
dc.contributor.authorKim, Scott Y. H.en_US
dc.date.accessioned2008-02-04T19:19:28Z
dc.date.available2009-01-07T20:01:16Zen_US
dc.date.issued2008-01en_US
dc.identifier.citationFrank, Samuel A.; Wilson, Renee; Holloway, Robert G.; Zimmerman, Carol; Peterson, Derick R.; Kieburtz, Karl; Kim, Scott Y.H. (2008). "Ethics of sham surgery: Perspective of patients." Movement Disorders 23(1): 63-68. <http://hdl.handle.net/2027.42/57916>en_US
dc.identifier.issn0885-3185en_US
dc.identifier.issn1531-8257en_US
dc.identifier.urihttps://hdl.handle.net/2027.42/57916
dc.identifier.urihttp://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/sites/entrez?cmd=retrieve&db=pubmed&list_uids=17960809&dopt=citationen_US
dc.description.abstractSham surgery is used as a control condition in neurosurgical clinical trials in Parkinson's disease (PD) but remains controversial. This study aimed to assess the perspective of patients with PD and the general public on the use of sham surgery controls. We surveyed consecutive patients from a university-based neurology outpatient clinic and a community-based general internal medicine practice. Background information was provided regarding PD and two possible methods of testing the efficacy of a novel gene transfer procedure, followed by questions that addressed participants' opinions related to the willingness to participate and permissibility of blinded and unblinded trial designs. Two hundred eighty-eight (57.6%) patients returned surveys. Patients with PD expressed less willingness to participate in the proposed gene transfer surgery trials. Unblinded studies received greater support, but a majority would still allow the use of sham surgery. Those in favor of sham surgery were more educated and more likely to use societal perspective rationales. Patients with PD are more cautious about surgical research participation than patients with non-PD. Their policy views were similar to others', with a majority supporting the use of sham controls. Future research needs to determine whether eliciting more considered judgments of laypersons would reveal different levels of support for sham surgery. © 2007 Movement Disorder Societyen_US
dc.format.extent65984 bytes
dc.format.extent3118 bytes
dc.format.mimetypeapplication/pdf
dc.format.mimetypetext/plain
dc.publisherWiley Subscription Services, Inc., A Wiley Companyen_US
dc.subject.otherNeurologyen_US
dc.subject.otherNeuroscienceen_US
dc.titleEthics of sham surgery: Perspective of patientsen_US
dc.typeArticleen_US
dc.rights.robotsIndexNoFollowen_US
dc.subject.hlbtoplevelHealth Sciencesen_US
dc.description.peerreviewedPeer Revieweden_US
dc.contributor.affiliationumDepartment of Psychiatry, the Bioethics Program, and the Center for Behavioral and Decision Sciences in Medicine, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, Michiganen_US
dc.contributor.affiliationotherDepartment of Neurology, Boston University School of Medicine, Boston, Massachusetts ; 715 Albany St., Collamore 329, Boston, MA 02118en_US
dc.contributor.affiliationotherDepartment of Neurology, University of Rochester, Rochester, New Yorken_US
dc.contributor.affiliationotherDepartment of Neurology, University of Rochester, Rochester, New Yorken_US
dc.contributor.affiliationotherDepartment of Neurology, University of Rochester, Rochester, New Yorken_US
dc.contributor.affiliationotherDepartment of Biostatistics and Computational Biology, University of Rochester, Rochester, New Yorken_US
dc.contributor.affiliationotherDepartment of Neurology, University of Rochester, Rochester, New Yorken_US
dc.identifier.pmid17960809en_US
dc.description.bitstreamurlhttp://deepblue.lib.umich.edu/bitstream/2027.42/57916/1/21775_ftp.pdf
dc.identifier.doihttp://dx.doi.org/10.1002/mds.21775en_US
dc.identifier.sourceMovement Disordersen_US
dc.owningcollnameInterdisciplinary and Peer-Reviewed


Files in this item

Show simple item record

Remediation of Harmful Language

The University of Michigan Library aims to describe library materials in a way that respects the people and communities who create, use, and are represented in our collections. Report harmful or offensive language in catalog records, finding aids, or elsewhere in our collections anonymously through our metadata feedback form. More information at Remediation of Harmful Language.

Accessibility

If you are unable to use this file in its current format, please select the Contact Us link and we can modify it to make it more accessible to you.