Literature DB >> 3600702

Equipoise and the ethics of clinical research.

B Freedman.   

Abstract

The ethics of clinical research requires equipoise--a state of genuine uncertainty on the part of the clinical investigator regarding the comparative therapeutic merits of each arm in a trial. Should the investigator discover that one treatment is of superior therapeutic merit, he or she is ethically obliged to offer that treatment. The current understanding of this requirement, which entails that the investigator have no "treatment preference" throughout the course of the trial, presents nearly insuperable obstacles to the ethical commencement or completion of a controlled trial and may also contribute to the termination of trials because of the failure to enroll enough patients. I suggest an alternative concept of equipoise, which would be based on present or imminent controversy in the clinical community over the preferred treatment. According to this concept of "clinical equipoise," the requirement is satisfied if there is genuine uncertainty within the expert medical community--not necessarily on the part of the individual investigator--about the preferred treatment.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  1987        PMID: 3600702     DOI: 10.1056/NEJM198707163170304

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  N Engl J Med        ISSN: 0028-4793            Impact factor:   91.245


  413 in total

1.  Ethical issues in schizophrenia research.

Authors:  R B Zipursky
Journal:  Curr Psychiatry Rep       Date:  1999-10       Impact factor: 5.285

2.  Giving medicine a fair trial. Trials should not second guess what patients want.

Authors:  R Ashcroft
Journal:  BMJ       Date:  2000-06-24

3.  Why randomized controlled trials fail but needn't: 1. Failure to gain "coal-face" commitment and to use the uncertainty principle.

Authors:  D L Sackett
Journal:  CMAJ       Date:  2000-05-02       Impact factor: 8.262

4.  Randomisation and resource allocation: a missed opportunity for evaluating health care and social interventions.

Authors:  T Toroyan; I Roberts; A Oakley
Journal:  J Med Ethics       Date:  2000-10       Impact factor: 2.903

5.  Why Sackett's analysis of randomized controlled trials fails, but needn't.

Authors:  S H Shapiro; K C Glass
Journal:  CMAJ       Date:  2000-10-03       Impact factor: 8.262

6.  Declaration of Helsinki should be strengthened.

Authors:  K J Rothman
Journal:  BMJ       Date:  2000-08-12

7.  Surgical "placebo" controls.

Authors:  Robert Tenery; Herbert Rakatansky; Frank A Riddick; Michael S Goldrich; Leonard J Morse; John M O'Bannon; Priscilla Ray; Sherie Smalley; Matthew Weiss; Audiey Kao; Karine Morin; Andrew Maixner; Sam Seiden
Journal:  Ann Surg       Date:  2002-02       Impact factor: 12.969

8.  Uncertainty about clinical equipoise.

Authors:  I Shrier
Journal:  CMAJ       Date:  2001-06-26       Impact factor: 8.262

Review 9.  The quality improvement-research divide and the need for external oversight.

Authors:  E Bellin; N N Dubler
Journal:  Am J Public Health       Date:  2001-09       Impact factor: 9.308

10.  Placebo trials and tribulations.

Authors:  Charles Weijer
Journal:  CMAJ       Date:  2002-03-05       Impact factor: 8.262

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.