The DOI matches its Crossref record; 1 of the 1 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Professional Integrity in Clinical Research
Abstract
In response to public concern over abuses in human medical experimentation, the dominant approach to the ethics of clinical research during the past 30 years has been regulation, particularly via institutional review board review and approval of scientific protocols and written consent forms. However, the effectiveness of regulatory mechanisms in ensuring the ethical conduct of clinical research is limited. Little attention has been devoted to the nature and role of professional integrity of physician investigators, a conscientious framework for guiding investigators in the socially important but morally complex activity of clinical research. Professional integrity is vital in forging an ethically sound relationship between investigators and patient volunteers, a relationship that differs in important ways from the patient-physician relationship in standard clinical practice. We examine critically 2 models of the moral identity of physician investigators, the investigator as clinician and the investigator as scientist; in neither of these 2 models can the physician investigator eliminate completely the moral conflicts posed by clinical research. The professional integrity of physician investigators depends on a coherent moral identity that is proper to the enterprise of clinical research. The roles of clinician and scientist must be integrated to manage conscientiously the ethical complexity, ambiguity, and tensions between the potentially competing loyalties of science and care of volunteer patients.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
Conflict of Interest in the Debate over Calcium-Channel Antagonists
Stelfox, H. T., Chua, G., O'Rourke, K., & Detsky, A. S. (1998) · New England Journal of Medicine · doi:10.1056/nejm199801083380206 · Cited by 615
Cited by
Quality of informed consent in cancer clinical trials: a cross-sectional survey
Joffe, S., Cook, E. F., Cleary, P. D., Clark, J. W., & Weeks, J. C. (2001) · The Lancet · doi:10.1016/s0140-6736(01)06805-2 · Cited by 655
Challenges in recruitment of research participants
Patel, M. X., Doku, V., & Tennakoon, L. (2003) · Advances in Psychiatric Treatment · doi:10.1192/apt.9.3.229 · Cited by 465
Horng, S., & Grady, C. (2003) · IRB: Ethics and Human Research · doi:10.2307/3564408 · Cited by 243
Bench to Bedside: Mapping the Moral Terrain of Clinical Research
Joffe, S., & Miller, F. G. (2008) · Hastings Center Report · doi:10.1353/hcr.2008.0019 · Cited by 122
Self-citation
Metadata
- Authors
- Miller, F. G.
- Venue
- JAMA
- Publisher
- American Medical Association (AMA)
- Published
- 1998-10-28
- Volume
- 280
- Issue
- 16
- Pages
- 1449
- ISSN
- 0002-9955 (ISSN-L)
- 0098-7484
- OpenAlex
- W1979022382
- Cited by
- 201
- References
- 1
- FWCI
- 8.50
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Professional Integrity in Clinical Research. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1001/jama.280.16.1449
- The paper
- Miller, F. G. (1998). Professional Integrity in Clinical Research. JAMA. https://doi.org/10.1001/jama.280.16.1449
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.