Evidence map›Paper›PMID 25433679›Full record

ReviewTrials2014

Ethical and scientific considerations for patient enrollment into concurrent clinical trials.

Paul S Myles, Elizabeth Williamson, Justin Oakley, Andrew Forbes

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Trials, 2014. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 10 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
10citing 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

10 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Trial
  2. Article
  3. Co-enrolment to UK Critical Care Studies - A 2019 update.Journal of the Intensive Care Society · 2022
    Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Ethical issues in competing clinical trials.Contemporary clinical trials communications · 2019
    Article
  8. Co-enrolment of Participants into Multiple Cancer Trials: Benefits and Challenges.Clinical oncology (Royal College of Radiologists (Great Britain)) · 2017
    Review
  9. Article
  10. 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

4 authors.

Paul S MylesDepartment of Anesthesia and Perioperative Medicine, Alfred Hospital, Commercial Road, Melbourne, VIC 3004, Australia. p.myles@alfred.org.au.
Elizabeth Williamson
Justin Oakley
Andrew Forbes

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Researchers and institutional review boards often consider it inappropriate for patients to be asked to consent to more than one study despite there being no regulatory prohibition on co-enrollment in most countries. There are however ethical, safety, statistical, and practical considerations relevant to co-enrollment, particularly in surgery and perioperative medicine, but co-enrollment can be done if such concerns can be resolved. Preventing eligible patients from co-enrolling in studies which they would authentically value participating in, and whose material risks and benefits they understand, violates their autonomy--and thus contravenes a fundamental principle of research ethics. Statistical issues must be considered but can be addressed. In most cases each trial can be analyzed separately and validly using standard intention to treat principles; selection and other biases can be avoided if enrollment into the second trial is not dependent upon randomized treatment in the first trial; and valid interaction analyses can be performed for each trial by considering the patient's status in the other trial at the time of randomization in the index trial. Clinical research with a potential to inform and improve clinical practice is valuable and should be supported. The ethical, safety, statistical, and practical aspects of co-enrollment can be managed, providing greater opportunity for research-led improvements in clinical practice.

Indexed as

Data Interpretation, StatisticalResearch SubjectsDrug InteractionsHumansInformed ConsentPatient SafetyPatient SelectionRandomized Controlled Trials as TopicReproducibility of ResultsRisk AssessmentRisk FactorsSelection BiasTruth Disclosure

Identifiers

PMID25433679
PMCPMC4258295

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.