ArticleInternal and emergency medicine2014
The ethical problem of randomization.
Article in Internal and emergency medicine, 2014. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 13 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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
13 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 27 citations in OpenAlex.
- Application of diffusion tensor-based tractography in treatment of brain arteriovenous malformations: a systematic review.Neurosurgical review · 2023Pooled it
- The (ab)use of food frequency questionnaire data in substitution modelling in nutritional epidemiology: a critique.European journal of clinical nutrition · 2026Review
- Review
- Exploring the therapeutic effects of continuous kidney replacement therapy in patients with severe acidosis using deep learning-based causal inference.Scientific reports · 2025Article
- Estimating treatment effects using parametric models as counter-factual evidence.BMC medical research methodology · 2025Article
- The adaptation of a single institution diabetes care platform into a nationally available turnkey solution.NPJ digital medicine · 2024Article
- Challenges and Alternatives to Evaluation Methods and Regulation Approaches for Medical Apps as Mobile Medical Devices: International and Multidisciplinary Focus Group Discussion.Journal of medical Internet research · 2024Article
- The Randomised Controlled Trial at the Intersection of Research Ethics and Innovation.Pharmaceutical medicine · 2022Article
- The TOTAL trial dilemma: A survey among professionals on equipoise regarding fetal therapy for severe congenital diaphragmatic hernia.Prenatal diagnosis · 2021Article
- Bipolar radiofrequency ablation of mandibular branch for refractory V3 trigeminal neuralgia.Journal of pain research · 2019Article
- A Simulation Study of Threats to Validity in Quasi-Experimental Designs: Interrelationship between Design, Measurement, and Analysis.Frontiers in psychology · 2016Article
- Are adaptive randomised trials or non-randomised studies the best way to address the Ebola outbreak in west Africa?The Lancet. Infectious diseases · 2015Review
- Randomization, ethics and clinical research.Internal and emergency medicine · 2014Article
Corrections and comments
- Commented on by
Authors and funding
3 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The Fondazione Umberto Veronesi ethics committee recently published a statement concerning the inherent ethical issues of randomized clinical trials (RCTs), mainly focusing on randomization, raising many questions, and suggesting possible solutions. The main concern is that the patients enrolled in a RCT are used to improve medical knowledge, but they cannot be the beneficiaries of the results of the trials in which they are participating. Possible solutions come from a wider use of clinical and administrative databases, and an early termination of trials. We discuss this statement, emphasizing that the scientific and ethical reason for embarking on a clinical trial is uncertainty. The uncertainty regarding the comparative benefits and harms of each compared treatment (clinical equipoise) warrants equity in allocation. Randomization allows one to obtain unbiased evidence that we cannot know in advance. The expected probability of a new treatment to be successful describes the limits within which a study can be acceptable both from an ethical as well as a scientific point of view. Most people accept enrollment in a RCT if the probability of success of the experimental treatment is between 50 and 70%. The assumption and concern that there is a conflict between "scientific" and "ethical" aspects of a clinical trial due to randomization should at least be mitigated, considering that only scientifically sounded studies can be considered ethical. Randomization remains the appropriate approach to ensure the study's internal validity. Different aspects seem to be more important, from the ethical point of view, considering RCT and their publication.
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.