Evidence map›Paper›PMID 25374122›Full record

ReviewPaediatric drugs2015

The principle of equipoise in pediatric drug trials.

Kim Chau, Gideon Koren

Abstract readReview
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Review in Paediatric drugs, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
4citing papers in PubMed
–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

4 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Trial
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. 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

2 authors.

Kim ChauDepartment of Pharmacology and Toxicology, University of Toronto, Toronto, Canada.
Gideon Koren

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Equipoise is a fundamental ethical principle in the conduct of interventional trials comparing two or more treatment arms. This principle dictates that, at the time of planning and executing such trials, the researchers must have no compelling evidence that one arm is superior to the other arm(s). That means that it is unethical to involve patients in a study where one intervention is convincingly better than the other, as this would mean that a group of patients will receive an inferior option, which may endanger their health. While this principle may be straightforward at the beginning of a trial, there are numerous ways how it may be subsequently disrupted. Presently, most of the literature on equipoise deals with adult patients, with very little experience in children. This paper illustrates the principle of equipoise and the process of defining it. Because the majority of pediatric medications have not been studied adequately and are not labeled for pediatric use, it is often challenging to decide whether equipoise exists for a certain pharmacological treatment. Moreover, the equipoise may dynamically change during the conduct of a study, if new evidence from other studies becomes available.

Indexed as

Drug-Related Side Effects and Adverse ReactionsClinical Trials as TopicHumansPediatrics

Identifiers

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.