Search research articles

ABOUT JoVE

Overview Leadership Blog JoVE Help Center

AUTHORS

Publishing Process Editorial Board Scope & Policies Peer Review FAQ Submit

LIBRARIANS

Testimonials Subscriptions Access Resources Library Advisory Board FAQ

RESEARCH

JoVE Journal Methods Collections JoVE Encyclopedia of Experiments Archive

EDUCATION

JoVE Core JoVE Business JoVE Science Education JoVE Lab Manual Faculty Resource Center Faculty Site

Terms & Conditions of Use

Related Concept Videos

Types of Biopharmaceutical Studies: Controlled and Non-Controlled Approaches

Types of Biopharmaceutical Studies: Controlled and Non-Controlled Approaches

Biopharmaceutical studies constitute a vital field aiming to enhance drug delivery methods and refine therapeutic approaches, drawing upon diverse interdisciplinary knowledge. In research methodologies, the choice between controlled and non-controlled studies significantly influences the study's reliability and accuracy.
Non-controlled studies, commonly employed for initial exploration, lack a control group, rendering them susceptible to biases and external influences. In contrast, controlled...

Strategies for Assessing and Addressing Confounding

Strategies for Assessing and Addressing Confounding

Confounding is a critical issue in epidemiological studies, often leading to misleading conclusions about associations between exposures and outcomes. It occurs when the relationship between the exposure and the outcome is mixed with the effects of other factors that influence the outcome. Given that, addressing confounding is of high importance for drawing accurate inferences in research.
Confounding can be addressed at both the design phase of a study and through analytical methods after data...

Relative Risk

Relative Risk

Relative risk (RR) is a statistical measure commonly used in epidemiology to compare the likelihood of a particular event occurring between two groups. This metric is important for evaluating the relationship between exposure to a specific risk factor and the probability of a particular outcome. It plays a crucial role in medical research, public health studies, and risk assessment. Relative risk quantifies how much more (or less) likely an event is to occur in an exposed group compared to an...

Regression Toward the Mean

Regression Toward the Mean

Regression toward the mean (“RTM”) is a phenomenon in which extremely high or low values—for example, and individual’s blood pressure at a particular moment—appear closer to a group’s average upon remeasuring. Although this statistical peculiarity is the result of random error and chance, it has been problematic across various medical, scientific, financial and psychological applications. In particular, RTM, if not taken into account, can interfere when researchers try to extrapolate results...

You might also read

Related Articles

Articles linked to this work by shared authors, journal, and citation graph.

Sort by

Same author

When is a randomised controlled trial health equity relevant? Development and validation of a conceptual framework.

BMJ open·2017

Same author

How to design efficient cluster randomised trials.

BMJ (Clinical research ed.)·2017

Same author

Laparoscopic surgery improves pregnancy outcomes in women with suspected endometriosis with or without pathological confirmation.

Clinical and experimental obstetrics & gynecology·2016

Same author

Protocol for the development of a CONSORT-equity guideline to improve reporting of health equity in randomized trials.

Implementation science : IS·2015

Same author

Impact of CONSORT extension for cluster randomised trials on quality of reporting and study methodology: review of random sample of 300 trials, 2000-8.

BMJ (Clinical research ed.)·2011

Same author

A comparison of journal instructions regarding institutional review board approval and conflict-of-interest disclosure between 1995 and 2005.

Journal of medical ethics·2008

Search research articles

Related Experiment Video

Updated: Jul 13, 2026

An R-Based Landscape Validation of a Competing Risk Model

An R-Based Landscape Validation of a Competing Risk Model

Published on: September 16, 2022

Refuting the net risks test: a response to Wendler and Miller's "Assessing research risks systematically".

C Weijer¹, P B Miller

¹Department of Philosophy, Talbot College, University of Western Ontario, London, Ontario, Canada, N6A 3K7. charles.weijer@dal.ca

Journal of Medical Ethics

|August 1, 2007

Summary

The net risks test fails to meet essential ethical criteria for research. This analysis demonstrates it does not protect subjects or adequately evaluate research risks and benefits.

More Related Videos

Social Threat-Safety Test Uncovers Psychosocial Stress-Related Phenotypes

Social Threat-Safety Test Uncovers Psychosocial Stress-Related Phenotypes

Published on: December 15, 2023

Using the Threat Probability Task to Assess Anxiety and Fear During Uncertain and Certain Threat

Using the Threat Probability Task to Assess Anxiety and Fear During Uncertain and Certain Threat

Published on: September 12, 2014

Related Experiment Videos

Last Updated: Jul 13, 2026

An R-Based Landscape Validation of a Competing Risk Model

An R-Based Landscape Validation of a Competing Risk Model

Published on: September 16, 2022

Social Threat-Safety Test Uncovers Psychosocial Stress-Related Phenotypes

Social Threat-Safety Test Uncovers Psychosocial Stress-Related Phenotypes

Published on: December 15, 2023

Using the Threat Probability Task to Assess Anxiety and Fear During Uncertain and Certain Threat

Using the Threat Probability Task to Assess Anxiety and Fear During Uncertain and Certain Threat

Published on: September 12, 2014

Area of Science:

Medical Ethics
Clinical Research Ethics

Background:

The "net risks test" was proposed as an alternative to traditional benefit-harm analysis in research ethics.
Critics argue the dominant benefit-harm analysis, including component analysis, is insufficient.
The net risks test was challenged to meet five specific ethical criteria.

Purpose of the Study:

To evaluate whether the proposed "net risks test" meets the five criteria for an ethical research analysis.
To determine if the net risks test is a viable alternative to component analysis in research ethics.

Main Methods:

Critical analysis of the "net risks test" against established ethical standards for research.
Evaluation of the net risks test's ability to address specific challenges in clinical research, including mixed interventions and physician-patient communication.

Main Results:

The net risks test fails to meet any of the five proposed ethical criteria.
The test does not adequately protect research subjects.
It does not provide a consistent framework for evaluating research risks and benefits.

Conclusions:

The "net risks test" is not a viable alternative to component analysis in research ethics.
The proposed test falls short in protecting participants and guiding ethical research practices.
Component analysis remains the more robust ethical framework for evaluating research.