Evidence map›Paper›PMID 25578433›Full record

ArticleBMC medical ethics2015

Placebo-controlled clinical trials: how trial documents justify the use of randomisation and placebo.

Tapani Keränen, Arja Halkoaho, Emmi Itkonen, Anna-Maija Pietilä

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in BMC medical ethics, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
8citing papers in PubMed
2.3field-weighted citation impact, top 11% of its field
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

8 citing papers in PubMed, 15 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Trial
  2. Trial
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Review
  6. Article
  7. Putting placebos to the test.PLoS biology · 2017
    Review
  8. 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 at 3 institutions in 1 country.

Tapani KeränenScience Service Center, Kuopio University Hospital, P,O, Box 100, Kuopio 70029 KYS, Finland. tapani.keranen@thl.fi.
Arja Halkoaho
Emmi Itkonen
Anna-Maija Pietilä
Kuopio University Hospital · FIFinnish Institute for Health and Welfare · FIUniversity of Eastern Finland · FI

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundRandomised clinical trials (RCTs) involve procedures such as randomisation, blinding, and placebo use, which are not part of standard medical care. Patients asked to participate in RCTs often experience difficulties in understanding the meaning of these and their justification.

methodsWe reviewed RCT protocols, statements of the principal investigator (PI), and participant-information materials, as submitted for opinion to a research ethics committee. We evaluated how the justification for the use of placebo was described in these documents and how the participants had been informed about randomisation, placebo use, and the possible risks of receiving placebo.

resultsIn total, 52 RCTs were identified. Eighteen of the study protocols (35%) provided some rationale for the use of placebo. In 15 (29%) of the statements, the PI had provided justification for its use. Possible risks related to placebo use were described in nine (17%) of the statements. An explanation as to why placebo was necessary featured in only 12 (23%) of the sets of participant-information materials, and only six (12%) of the documents discussed the possible risks associated with placebo.

conclusionsThe justification of placebo control was inadequately described in the RCT study protocols, by principal or national co-ordinating investigators, and in participant-information documents. Furthermore, possible health-related risks associated with the use of placebo were poorly explained in the participant-information documents. Ethics committes and study participants need to be better informed of the rationale for the use of placebo, along with the associated risks.

Indexed as

CommunicationComprehensionDecision MakingInformed ConsentPatient SelectionPlacebo EffectDocumentationEthical ReviewEthics Committees, ResearchHumansMotivationRandomized Controlled Trials as TopicResearch DesignResearch SubjectsRiskSocial Responsibility

Identifiers

PMID25578433
PMCPMC4298117
OpenAlexW2118315879

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.