ArticleScience and engineering ethics2010
Statistical power, the Belmont report, and the ethics of clinical trials.
Article in Science and engineering ethics, 2010. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 10 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
10 citing papers in PubMed.
- The hazards of chasing subgroups in neutral stroke trials.Neurological research and practice · 2025Review
- Power to Detect What? Considerations for Planning and Evaluating Sample Size.Personality and social psychology review : an official journal of the Society for Personality and Social Psychology, Inc · 2024Review
- How to perform prespecified subgroup analyses when using propensity score methods in the case of imbalanced subgroups.BMC medical research methodology · 2023Article
- A review of informed consent and how it has evolved to protect vulnerable participants in emergency care research.EFORT open reviews · 2020Article
- Responsible Conduct of Human Subjects Research in Islamic Communities.Science and engineering ethics · 2019Article
- A Framework for Global Collaborative Data Management for Malaria Research.The American journal of tropical medicine and hygiene · 2015Article
- What's new in ethics of cardio-pulmonary resuscitation research: too little time and too many rules?Intensive care medicine · 2015Article
- Optimal design of studies of influenza transmission in households. II: comparison between cohort and case-ascertained studies.Epidemiology and infection · 2014Article
- Editors' overview: topics in the responsible management of research data.Science and engineering ethics · 2010Article
- Responsible research: what is expected? Commentary on: "Statistical power, the Belmont Report, and the ethics of clinical trials".Science and engineering ethics · 2010Article
Corrections and comments
- Commented on by
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Achieving a good clinical trial design increases the likelihood that a trial will take place as planned, including that data will be obtained from a sufficient number of participants, and the total number of participants will be the minimal required to gain the knowledge sought. A good trial design also increases the likelihood that the knowledge sought by the experiment will be forthcoming. Achieving such a design is more than good sense-it is ethically required in experiments when participants are at risk of harm. This paper argues that doing a power analysis effectively contributes to ensuring that a trial design is good. The ethical importance of good trial design has long been recognized for trials in which there is risk of serious harm to participants. However, whether the quality of a trial design, when the risk to participants is only minimal, is an ethical issue is rarely discussed. This paper argues that even in cases when the risk is minimal, the quality of the trial design is an ethical issue, and that this is reflected in the emphasis the Belmont Report places on the importance of the benefit of knowledge gained by society. The paper also argues that good trial design is required for true informed consent.
Indexed as
Identifiers
21063801What 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.