ArticleJournal of medical ethics2000
Can unequal be more fair? A response to Andrew Avins.
Article in Journal of medical ethics, 2000. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
8 citing papers in PubMed.
- Trial
- Does nirsevimab prevent lower respiratory infections caused by respiratory syncytial virus?Journal of perinatology : official journal of the California Perinatal Association · 2024Article
- Unequal allotment of patients in phase III oncology clinical trials.American journal of cancer research · 2021Article
- Article
- Reasons for participating in randomised controlled trials: conditional altruism and considerations for self.Trials · 2010Article
- Article
- Sequential boundaries approach in clinical trials with unequal allocation ratios.BMC medical research methodology · 2006Article
- Rationing, randomizing, and researching in health care provision.Journal of medical ethics · 2002Article
Corrections and comments
- Commented on by
- Comment on
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
In this paper, we respond to Andrew Avins's recent review of methods whose use he advocates in clinical trials, to make them more ethical. He recommends in particular, "unbalanced randomisation". However, we argue that, before such a recommendation can be made, it is important to establish why unequal randomisation might offer ethical advantages over equal randomisation, other things being equal. It is important to make a pragmatic distinction between trials of treatments that are already routinely available and trials of restricted treatments. We conclude that unequal randomisation could, indeed, be an ethical compromise between protecting the interests of participants and those of society.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.