BACKGROUND: Sham surgery controls are increasingly used in neurosurgical clinical trials in Parkinson's disease (PD) but remain controversial. We interviewed participants of such trials, specifically examining their understanding and attitudes regarding sham surgery. METHODS: We conducted semistructured qualitative interviews with participants of 3 sham surgery-controlled trials for PD, focusing on their understanding of sham design, their reactions to it, its impact on decision making, and their understanding of posttrial availability of the experimental intervention and its impact on decisions to participate. RESULTS: All subjects (n = 90) understood the 2-arm design; most (86%) described the procedural differences between the arms accurately. Ninety-two percent referred to scientific or regulatory reasons as rationales for the sham control, with 62% specifically referring to the placebo effect. Ninety-one percent said posttrial availability of the experimental intervention had a strong (48%) or some (43%) influence on their decision to participate, but only 68% understood the conditions for posttrial availability. CONCLUSIONS: Most subjects in sham surgery-controlled PD trials comprehend the sham surgery design and its rationale. Although there is room for improvement, most subjects of sham surgery trials appear to be adequately informed.
BACKGROUND: Sham surgery controls are increasingly used in neurosurgical clinical trials in Parkinson's disease (PD) but remain controversial. We interviewed participants of such trials, specifically examining their understanding and attitudes regarding sham surgery. METHODS: We conducted semistructured qualitative interviews with participants of 3 sham surgery-controlled trials for PD, focusing on their understanding of sham design, their reactions to it, its impact on decision making, and their understanding of posttrial availability of the experimental intervention and its impact on decisions to participate. RESULTS: All subjects (n = 90) understood the 2-arm design; most (86%) described the procedural differences between the arms accurately. Ninety-two percent referred to scientific or regulatory reasons as rationales for the sham control, with 62% specifically referring to the placebo effect. Ninety-one percent said posttrial availability of the experimental intervention had a strong (48%) or some (43%) influence on their decision to participate, but only 68% understood the conditions for posttrial availability. CONCLUSIONS: Most subjects in sham surgery-controlled PD trials comprehend the sham surgery design and its rationale. Although there is room for improvement, most subjects of sham surgery trials appear to be adequately informed.
Authors: Scott Y H Kim; Renee M Wilson; H Myra Kim; Robert G Holloway; Raymond G De Vries; Samuel A Frank; Karl Kieburtz Journal: Mov Disord Date: 2012-02-07 Impact factor: 10.338
Authors: William J Marks; Raymond T Bartus; Joao Siffert; Charles S Davis; Andres Lozano; Nicholas Boulis; Jerrold Vitek; Mark Stacy; Dennis Turner; Leonard Verhagen; Roy Bakay; Raymond Watts; Barton Guthrie; Joseph Jankovic; Richard Simpson; Michele Tagliati; Ron Alterman; Matthew Stern; Gordon Baltuch; Philip A Starr; Paul S Larson; Jill L Ostrem; John Nutt; Karl Kieburtz; Jeffrey H Kordower; C Warren Olanow Journal: Lancet Neurol Date: 2010-10-20 Impact factor: 44.182
Authors: Scott Y H Kim; Lauren Schrock; Renee M Wilson; Samuel A Frank; Robert G Holloway; Karl Kieburtz; Raymond G de Vries Journal: IRB Date: 2009 Sep-Oct
Authors: Robert E Gross; Raymond L Watts; Robert A Hauser; Roy Ae Bakay; Heinz Reichmann; Rüdiger von Kummer; William G Ondo; Elke Reissig; Wilhelm Eisner; Heike Steiner-Schulze; Harald Siedentop; Klaus Fichte; Walter Hong; Michael Cornfeldt; Katherine Beebe; Rupert Sandbrink Journal: Lancet Neurol Date: 2011-05-10 Impact factor: 44.182
Authors: Peter A LeWitt; Ali R Rezai; Maureen A Leehey; Steven G Ojemann; Alice W Flaherty; Emad N Eskandar; Sandra K Kostyk; Karen Thomas; Atom Sarkar; Mustafa S Siddiqui; Stephen B Tatter; Jason M Schwalb; Kathleen L Poston; Jaimie M Henderson; Roger M Kurlan; Irene H Richard; Lori Van Meter; Christine V Sapan; Matthew J During; Michael G Kaplitt; Andrew Feigin Journal: Lancet Neurol Date: 2011-04 Impact factor: 44.182
Authors: Scott Y H Kim; Raymond De Vries; Sonali Parnami; Renee Wilson; H Myra Kim; Samuel Frank; Robert G Holloway; Karl Kieburtz Journal: J Med Ethics Date: 2014-05-22 Impact factor: 2.903
Authors: David J Beard; Marion K Campbell; Jane M Blazeby; Andrew J Carr; Charles Weijer; Brian H Cuthbertson; Rachelle Buchbinder; Thomas Pinkney; Felicity L Bishop; Jonathan Pugh; Sian Cousins; Ian Harris; L Stefan Lohmander; Natalie Blencowe; Katie Gillies; Pascal Probst; Carol Brennan; Andrew Cook; Dair Farrar-Hockley; Julian Savulescu; Richard Huxtable; Amar Rangan; Irene Tracey; Peter Brocklehurst; Manuela L Ferreira; Jon Nicholl; Barnaby C Reeves; Freddie Hamdy; Samuel Cs Rowley; Naomi Lee; Jonathan A Cook Journal: Health Technol Assess Date: 2021-09 Impact factor: 4.014