ArticleContemporary clinical trials communications2019
Ethical issues in competing clinical trials.
Article in Contemporary clinical trials communications, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers.
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
6 citing papers in PubMed.
- Beyond the Data: Addressing Ethical Concerns in Clinical Trials.Therapeutic innovation & regulatory science · 2026Article
- Breaking Barriers: Enhancing Access, Equity, and Efficiency in Interstitial Lung Disease Clinical Trials.American journal of respiratory and critical care medicine · 2025Article
- The Korea Cohort Consortium: The Future of Pooling Cohort Studies.Journal of preventive medicine and public health = Yebang Uihakhoe chi · 2022Article
- Quantifying geographical accessibility to cancer clinical trials in different income landscapes.ESMO open · 2022Article
- Allocation of Opportunities to Participate in Clinical Trials during the Covid-19 Pandemic and Other Public Health Emergencies.The Hastings Center report · 2022Article
- Prioritizing studies of COVID-19 and lessons learned.Journal of clinical and translational science · 2021Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The proliferation of clinical trials in the last decade and the relatively limited number of experienced clinical trial sites in comparison has created in some sites an environment of clinical trial abundance. As clinical trial protocols typically restrict patients from concurrent clinical trial participation, and patients may be eligible for more than one trial at any given time, selecting the best trial for an individual patient requires evaluation of not only the merits of the individual trials but also patient preferences. This article highlights some potential ethical issues which should be considered when clinical trials are raised as a treatment option and when patients are eligible for more than one trial at the time of evaluation.
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.