Literature DB >> 25194693

The ethical problem of randomization.

Agostino Colli1, Luigi Pagliaro, Piergiorgio Duca.   

Abstract

The Fondazione Umberto Veronesi ethics committee recently published a statement concerning the inherent ethical issues of randomized clinical trials (RCTs), mainly focusing on randomization, raising many questions, and suggesting possible solutions. The main concern is that the patients enrolled in a RCT are used to improve medical knowledge, but they cannot be the beneficiaries of the results of the trials in which they are participating. Possible solutions come from a wider use of clinical and administrative databases, and an early termination of trials. We discuss this statement, emphasizing that the scientific and ethical reason for embarking on a clinical trial is uncertainty. The uncertainty regarding the comparative benefits and harms of each compared treatment (clinical equipoise) warrants equity in allocation. Randomization allows one to obtain unbiased evidence that we cannot know in advance. The expected probability of a new treatment to be successful describes the limits within which a study can be acceptable both from an ethical as well as a scientific point of view. Most people accept enrollment in a RCT if the probability of success of the experimental treatment is between 50 and 70%. The assumption and concern that there is a conflict between "scientific" and "ethical" aspects of a clinical trial due to randomization should at least be mitigated, considering that only scientifically sounded studies can be considered ethical. Randomization remains the appropriate approach to ensure the study's internal validity. Different aspects seem to be more important, from the ethical point of view, considering RCT and their publication.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2014        PMID: 25194693     DOI: 10.1007/s11739-014-1118-z

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Intern Emerg Med        ISSN: 1828-0447            Impact factor:   3.397


  31 in total

1.  Randomized trials or observational tribulations?

Authors:  S J Pocock; D R Elbourne
Journal:  N Engl J Med       Date:  2000-06-22       Impact factor: 91.245

Review 2.  Parachute use to prevent death and major trauma related to gravitational challenge: systematic review of randomised controlled trials.

Authors:  Gordon C S Smith; Jill P Pell
Journal:  BMJ       Date:  2003-12-20

3.  Association of funding and conclusions in randomized drug trials: a reflection of treatment effect or adverse events?

Authors:  Bodil Als-Nielsen; Wendong Chen; Christian Gluud; Lise L Kjaergard
Journal:  JAMA       Date:  2003-08-20       Impact factor: 56.272

Review 4.  Heterogeneity of treatment effects: implications for guidelines, payment, and quality assessment.

Authors:  Sheldon Greenfield; Richard Kravitz; Naihua Duan; Sherrie H Kaplan
Journal:  Am J Med       Date:  2007-04       Impact factor: 4.965

5.  STREPTOMYCIN treatment of pulmonary tuberculosis.

Authors: 
Journal:  Br Med J       Date:  1948-10-30

Review 6.  The architecture of diagnostic research: from bench to bedside--research guidelines using liver stiffness as an example.

Authors:  Agostino Colli; Mirella Fraquelli; Giovanni Casazza; Dario Conte; Dimitrinka Nikolova; Piergiorgio Duca; Kristian Thorlund; Christian Gluud
Journal:  Hepatology       Date:  2014-07       Impact factor: 17.425

7.  Limitations of applying summary results of clinical trials to individual patients: the need for risk stratification.

Authors:  David M Kent; Rodney A Hayward
Journal:  JAMA       Date:  2007-09-12       Impact factor: 56.272

8.  Differences between perspectives of physicians and patients on anticoagulation in patients with atrial fibrillation: observational study.

Authors:  P J Devereaux; D R Anderson; M J Gardner; W Putnam; G J Flowerdew; B F Brownell; S Nagpal; J L Cox
Journal:  BMJ       Date:  2001-11-24

9.  Characteristics of clinical trials to support approval of orphan vs nonorphan drugs for cancer.

Authors:  Aaron S Kesselheim; Jessica A Myers; Jerry Avorn
Journal:  JAMA       Date:  2011-06-08       Impact factor: 56.272

10.  The unintended consequences of clinical trials regulations.

Authors:  Alex D McMahon; David I Conway; Tom M Macdonald; Gordon T McInnes
Journal:  PLoS Med       Date:  2009-11-17       Impact factor: 11.069

View more
  6 in total

1.  Randomization, ethics and clinical research.

Authors:  Giorgio Costantino; Giovanni Casazza
Journal:  Intern Emerg Med       Date:  2014-08-29       Impact factor: 3.397

2.  Bipolar radiofrequency ablation of mandibular branch for refractory V3 trigeminal neuralgia.

Authors:  Bing Huang; Keyue Xie; Yajing Chen; Jiang Wu; Ming Yao
Journal:  J Pain Res       Date:  2019-05-09       Impact factor: 3.133

Review 3.  Are adaptive randomised trials or non-randomised studies the best way to address the Ebola outbreak in west Africa?

Authors:  Simone Lanini; Alimuddin Zumla; John P A Ioannidis; Antonino Di Caro; Sanjeev Krishna; Lawrence Gostin; Enrico Girardi; Michel Pletschette; Gino Strada; Aldo Baritussio; Gina Portella; Giovanni Apolone; Silvio Cavuto; Roberto Satolli; Peter Kremsner; Francesco Vairo; Giuseppe Ippolito
Journal:  Lancet Infect Dis       Date:  2015-04-14       Impact factor: 25.071

4.  The Randomised Controlled Trial at the Intersection of Research Ethics and Innovation.

Authors:  Torbjörn Callréus
Journal:  Pharmaceut Med       Date:  2022-07-25

5.  The TOTAL trial dilemma: A survey among professionals on equipoise regarding fetal therapy for severe congenital diaphragmatic hernia.

Authors:  Simen Vergote; Daniel Pizzolato; Francesca Russo; Kris Dierickx; Jan Deprest; Neeltje Crombag
Journal:  Prenat Diagn       Date:  2020-11-05       Impact factor: 3.242

6.  A Simulation Study of Threats to Validity in Quasi-Experimental Designs: Interrelationship between Design, Measurement, and Analysis.

Authors:  Fco P Holgado-Tello; Salvador Chacón-Moscoso; Susana Sanduvete-Chaves; José A Pérez-Gil
Journal:  Front Psychol       Date:  2016-06-16
  6 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.