See
Cortes-Puch, et al.,
supra note 38 (discussing, among other things, the use of untested, altered oximeters);
Merz, J. F. and
Yerramilli, D.,
“SUPPORT Asked the Wrong Question,” American Journal of Bioethics 13, no.
12 (
2013):
25-
26 (criticizing the trial design for being “powered to detect a clinically meaningful decrease in incidence and severity of ROP,” in a way that “ignored the trade-off in mortality risk”);
Merz, J. F. and
King, N. M. P., “Letter to the editor,”
British Medical Journal 347 (2013): f4198,
available at <
http://www.bmj.com/content/347/bmj.f4198/rr/653401> (explaining why a composite primary endpoint was inappropriate); C. Natanson, “Comments at OHRP Public Meeting, OHRP Public Meeting Transcript,”
supra note 40 (questioning whether experiments of titrated treatments comparing the extreme ends of usual care ranges have scientific merit and are ethical).
Google Scholar