ArticleJournal of medical ethics2000
Randomisation and resource allocation: a missed opportunity for evaluating health care and social interventions.
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 7 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
7 citing papers in PubMed.
- Effectiveness of out-of-home day care for disadvantaged families: randomised controlled trial.BMJ (Clinical research ed.) · 2003Trial
- Randomised controlled trial of site specific advice on school travel patterns.Archives of disease in childhood · 2003Trial
- Why so much uncertainty about adjuvant HPV vaccines after local treatment? Can the discrepancy between the positive statistical results and the scientific community doubts be solved?Infectious agents and cancer · 2024Article
- Is there a social cost of randomization?Social choice and welfare · 2019Article
- Equipoise, design bias, and randomized controlled trials: the elusive ethics of new drug development.Arthritis research & therapy · 2004Article
- Rationing, randomizing, and researching in health care provision.Journal of medical ethics · 2002Article
- Casting and drawing lots: a time honoured way of dealing with uncertainty and ensuring fairness.BMJ (Clinical research ed.)Article
Corrections and comments
- Commented on by
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Equipoise is widely regarded to be an essential prerequisite for the ethical conduct of a randomised controlled trial. There are some circumstances however, under which it is acceptable to conduct a randomised controlled trial (RCT) in the absence of equipoise. Limited access to the preferred intervention is one such circumstance. In this paper we present an example of a randomised trial in which access to the preferred intervention, preschool education, was severely limited by resource constraints. The ethical issues that arise when conducting randomised trials in health care are considered in the context of trials of social interventions. In health, education and social welfare, effective interventions are frequently limited due to budgetary constraints. Explicit acknowledgement of the need to ration interventions, and the use of random allocation to do this even in the absence of equipoise, would facilitate learning more about the effects of these interventions.
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.