This Article  • Full text  • PDF  • Send to a friend  • Save in My Folder  • Save to citation manager  • Permissions  Citing Articles  • Contact me when this article is cited  Related Content  • Related article  • Similar articles in this journal  Topic Collections  • Statistics and Research Methods  • Alert me on articles by topic  Social Bookmarking   What's this?

	Since this article does not have an abstract, we have provided the first 150 words of the full text and any section headings.

We read with interest the commentary on "Deception in the Pursuit of Science," by Wendler and Miller.¹ As members of the Institutional Review Board (IRB) and the Health Care Ethics Committee of the Hospital Privado de Comunidad in Mar del Plata, Argentina, we wish to briefly comment on our experience with a situation we were confronted with 6 years ago as a result of a research protocol submitted to us in March, 1998, by researchers at our institution. The study was a fourth-phase, open, prospective, multicentric study of an antihypertensive medication that consisted of 2 distinct phases. The first phase included a placebo, without informing the patients (simple blinding), whereas the second (with the drug) was characterized as the "titration and maintenance" phase. The proposed information brochure for the patients did not make any mention of the possibility of receiving placebo at any time during the study.

Our committee recognized . . . [Full Text of this Article]

AUTHOR INFORMATION
Maria I. Hechem, MD; Sergio Gonorazky, MD

CiteULike    Connotea    Del.icio.us    Digg    Reddit    Technorati    Twitter     What's this?

RELATED ARTICLE

Deception in the Pursuit of Science
David Wendler and Franklin G. Miller
Arch Intern Med. 2004;164(6):597-600.
EXTRACT | FULL TEXT