Literature DB >> 10860211

Justified deception? The single blind placebo in drug research.

M Evans1.   

Abstract

"Run-in" and "washout" periods involving the withholding of medication are widely used in drug research trials in pursuit of both patient safety and scientific reliability. Such no-medication periods can be justified ethically provided that they are apparent to patients, who can thereby properly consent to undergoing them. Less widespread, but still common, is the practice of "single blinding" no-medication periods, concealing them from patients by means of placebo. Whilst all placebos involve a measure of concealment, their use is typically justified in drug research trials (i) by their preserving the uncertainty generated by the random allocation of different treatments within a drug trial; and (ii) by the researchers openly declaring both the randomisation process and the chances of receiving placebo. In the single blind placebo "run-in" or "washout", neither of these conditions is met. This paper considers three possible defences of the practice of using single blind placebo "run-ins" or "washouts" and finds them all to fail; the practice appears ethically unjustified.

Entities:  

Keywords:  Biomedical and Behavioral Research

Mesh:

Year:  2000        PMID: 10860211      PMCID: PMC1733215          DOI: 10.1136/jme.26.3.188

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Med Ethics        ISSN: 0306-6800            Impact factor:   2.903


  6 in total

1.  NONBLIND PLACEBO TRIAL: AN EXPLORATION OF NEUROTIC PATIENTS' RESPONSES TO PLACEBO WHEN ITS INERT CONTENT IS DISCLOSED.

Authors:  L C PARK; L COVI
Journal:  Arch Gen Psychiatry       Date:  1965-04

2.  Are placebo run ins justified?

Authors:  S Senn
Journal:  BMJ       Date:  1997-04-19

3.  Comparative assessment of antihypertensive efficacy of DL-nebivolol and D-nebivolol in patients with confirmed mild to moderate hypertension.

Authors:  Y Lacourcière; L Poirier; J Lefebvre; F Archambault; J Cléroux
Journal:  J Cardiovasc Pharmacol       Date:  1995-04       Impact factor: 3.105

4.  Comparison of the efficacy and safety of once-daily versus twice-daily formulations of diltiazem in the treatment of systemic hypertension. The Canadian Multicenter Diltiazem-CD Hypertension Trial Group.

Authors:  T D Ruddy; J M Wright; D Savard; S P Handa; A Chockalingam; A P Boulet
Journal:  Cardiovasc Drugs Ther       Date:  1995-06       Impact factor: 3.727

5.  Additive effects of verapamil and enalapril in the treatment of mild to moderate hypertension.

Authors:  J H Levine; K C Ferdinand; P Cargo; H Laine; M Lefkowitz
Journal:  Am J Hypertens       Date:  1995-05       Impact factor: 2.689

6.  Comparison of verapamil and captopril in elderly hypertensive subjects: results of a randomized, double-blind, crossover study.

Authors:  M Bursztyn; J Ghanem; I Kobrin; J Fidel; D Ben-Ishay
Journal:  J Cardiovasc Pharmacol       Date:  1993-01       Impact factor: 3.105

  6 in total
  2 in total

Review 1.  The placebo effect in overactive bladder syndrome.

Authors:  Altaf Mangera; Christopher R Chapple; Zoe S Kopp; Melanie Plested
Journal:  Nat Rev Urol       Date:  2011-07-05       Impact factor: 14.432

2.  The battering of informed consent.

Authors:  M Kottow
Journal:  J Med Ethics       Date:  2004-12       Impact factor: 2.903

  2 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.