Evidence map›Paper›PMID 21569349›Full record

ArticleTrials2011

Does clinical equipoise apply to cluster randomized trials in health research?

Ariella Binik, Charles Weijer, Andrew D McRae, Jeremy M Grimshaw, Robert Boruch, Jamie C Brehaut, Allan Donner, Martin P Eccles, Raphael Saginur, Monica Taljaard and 1 more

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Trials, 2011. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 11 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
11citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

11 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Guideline
  2. Trial
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Demonstrating Benefit-Risk Profiles of Novel Therapeutic Strategies in Kidney Transplantation: Opportunities and Challenges of Real-World Evidence.Transplant international : official journal of the European Society for Organ Transplantation · 2022
    Article
  6. Article
  7. Review
  8. Article
  9. The ethics of testing a test: randomized trials of the health impact of diagnostic tests for infectious diseases.Clinical infectious diseases : an official publication of the Infectious Diseases Society of America · 2012
    Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

11 authors.

Ariella BinikRotman Institute of Philosophy, Department of Philosophy, University of Western Ontario, London, ON, N6A 5B8, Canada.
Charles Weijer
Andrew D McRae
Jeremy M Grimshaw
Robert Boruch
Jamie C Brehaut
Allan Donner
Martin P Eccles
Raphael Saginur
Monica Taljaard
Merrick Zwarenstein

Funding

Canadian Institutes of Health Research
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

This article is part of a series of papers examining ethical issues in cluster randomized trials (CRTs) in health research. In the introductory paper in this series, Weijer and colleagues set out six areas of inquiry that must be addressed if the cluster trial is to be set on a firm ethical foundation. This paper addresses the third of the questions posed, namely, does clinical equipoise apply to CRTs in health research? The ethical principle of beneficence is the moral obligation not to harm needlessly and, when possible, to promote the welfare of research subjects. Two related ethical problems have been discussed in the CRT literature. First, are control groups that receive only usual care unduly disadvantaged? Second, when accumulating data suggests the superiority of one intervention in a trial, is there an ethical obligation to act?In individually randomized trials involving patients, similar questions are addressed by the concept of clinical equipoise, that is, the ethical requirement that, at the start of a trial, there be a state of honest, professional disagreement in the community of expert practitioners as to the preferred treatment. Since CRTs may not involve physician-researchers and patient-subjects, the applicability of clinical equipoise to CRTs is uncertain. Here we argue that clinical equipoise may be usefully grounded in a trust relationship between the state and research subjects, and, as a result, clinical equipoise is applicable to CRTs. Clinical equipoise is used to argue that control groups receiving only usual care are not disadvantaged so long as the evidence supporting the experimental and control interventions is such that experts would disagree as to which is preferred. Further, while data accumulating during the course of a CRT may favor one intervention over another, clinical equipoise supports continuing the trial until the results are likely to be broadly convincing, often coinciding with the planned completion of the trial. Finally, clinical equipoise provides research ethics committees with formal and procedural guidelines that form an important part of the assessment of the benefits and harms of CRTs in health research.

Indexed as

Cluster AnalysisResearch DesignTherapeutic EquipoiseEvidence-Based MedicineHumansMoral ObligationsPatient RightsPatient SelectionRandomized Controlled Trials as TopicRisk AssessmentTrust

Identifiers

PMID21569349
PMCPMC3113987

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.