Literature DB >> 9722109

The use of equipoise in clinical trials.

J A Chard1, R J Lilford.   

Abstract

Randomised control trials (RCTs) are the standard method for treatment evaluation. Unfortunately RCTs are inherently difficult to recruit for, precisely because of the randomisation element that makes them so statistically attractive. Problems of low recruitment are now beginning to impact on trials, with many either not being started or being forced to stop, due to lack of participation. This paper examines one issue that bears on the recruitment problem: equipoise. Equipoise is defined as the point where a rational, informed person has no preference between two (or more) available treatments (Lilford and Jackson, 1995). The use of equipoise as the fundamental criterion for eligibility for a trial seems to impose a hurdle to recruitment. Here we examine the various arguments surrounding its use and measurement. We conclude that effective equipoise based upon constructed "zones of indifference" offers the best chance for bridging the gap between the individual's right to decide and the need for clinical trials to benefit society.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  1998        PMID: 9722109     DOI: 10.1016/s0277-9536(98)00153-1

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Soc Sci Med        ISSN: 0277-9536            Impact factor:   4.634


  18 in total

1.  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

2.  Equipoise, a term whose time (if it ever came) has surely gone.

Authors:  D L Sackett
Journal:  CMAJ       Date:  2000-10-03       Impact factor: 8.262

3.  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

4.  Acknowledgment of uncertainty: a fundamental means to ensure scientific and ethical validity in clinical research.

Authors:  B Djulbegovic
Journal:  Curr Oncol Rep       Date:  2001-09       Impact factor: 5.075

5.  Uncertainty and the ethics of clinical trials.

Authors:  Sven Ove Hansson
Journal:  Theor Med Bioeth       Date:  2006

Review 6.  OARSI Clinical Trials Recommendations: Design and conduct of clinical trials of surgical interventions for osteoarthritis.

Authors:  J N Katz; E Losina; L S Lohmander
Journal:  Osteoarthritis Cartilage       Date:  2015-05       Impact factor: 6.576

7.  Departures from community equipoise may lead to incorrect inference in randomized trials.

Authors:  Jeffrey N Katz; John Wright; Bruce A Levy; John A Baron; Elena Losina
Journal:  J Clin Epidemiol       Date:  2010-07-17       Impact factor: 6.437

8.  The paradox of equipoise: the principle that drives and limits therapeutic discoveries in clinical research.

Authors:  Benjamin Djulbegovic
Journal:  Cancer Control       Date:  2009-10       Impact factor: 3.302

9.  Implementation salvage experiences from the Melbourne diabetes prevention study.

Authors:  James Dunbar; Andrea Hernan; Edward Janus; Nathalie Davis-Lameloise; Dino Asproloupos; Sharleen O'Reilly; Amy Timoshanko; Elizabeth Stewart; Catherine M Bennett; Greg Johnson; Rob Carter
Journal:  BMC Public Health       Date:  2012-09-19       Impact factor: 3.295

10.  A statistical framework for quantifying clinical equipoise for individual cases during randomized controlled surgical trials.

Authors:  Nicholas R Parsons; Yuri Kulikov; Alan Girling; Damian Griffin
Journal:  Trials       Date:  2011-12-13       Impact factor: 2.279

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.