Evidence map›Paper›PMID 32295604›Full record

ArticleTrials2020

Ethical issues in cluster randomized trials conducted in low- and middle-income countries: an analysis of two case studies.

Augustine T Choko, Gholamreza Roshandel, Donaldson F Conserve, Elizabeth L Corbett, Katherine Fielding, Karla Hemming, Reza Malekzadeh, Charles Weijer

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Trials, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 10 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
10citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–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 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Capacity Development of Research Ethics Administrators: Scoping Review.Journal of empirical research on human research ethics : JERHRE · 2022
    Article
  9. Review
  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

8 authors.

Augustine T ChokoMalawi-Liverpool Wellcome Trust Clinical Research Programme, Blantyre, Malawi.
Gholamreza RoshandelGolestan Research Center of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, Golestan University of Medical Sciences, Gorgan, Iran.
Donaldson F ConserveDepartment of Health Promotion, Education and Behaviour, University of South Carolina, Columbia, USA.
Elizabeth L CorbettMalawi-Liverpool Wellcome Trust Clinical Research Programme, Blantyre, Malawi.
Katherine FieldingDepartment of Infectious Disease Epidemiology, London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine, London, UK.
Karla HemmingInstitute of Applied Health Research, University of Birmingham, Birmingham, UK.
Reza MalekzadehDigestive Disease Research Center, Digestive Diseases Research Institute, Tehran University of Medical Sciences, Tehran, Iran.
Charles WeijerRotman Institute of Philosophy, Western University, London, Canada. cweijer@uwo.ca.

Funding

Department of Health SRF-2017-10-002Medical Research Council MR/R010161/1Wellcome Trust 200901/Z/16/Z
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundCluster randomized trials are common in health research in low- and middle-income countries raising issues that challenge interpretation of standard ethical guidelines. While the Ottawa Statement on the ethical design and conduct of cluster randomized trials provides guidance for researchers and research ethics committees, it does not explicitly focus on low- and middle-income settings. MAIN BODY: In this paper, we use the lens of the Ottawa Statement to analyze two cluster randomized trials conducted in low- and middle-income settings in order to identify gaps or ethical issues requiring further analysis and guidance. The PolyIran trial was a parallel-arm, cluster trial examining the effectiveness of a polypill for prevention of cardiovascular disease in Golestan province, Iran. The PASTAL trial was an adaptive, multistage, parallel-arm, cluster trial evaluating the effect of incentives for human immunodeficiency virus self-testing and follow-up on male partners of pregnant women in Malawi. Through an in-depth case analysis of these two studies we highlight several issues in need of further exploration. First, standards for verbal consent and waivers of consent require methods for operationalization if they are to be employed consistently. Second, the appropriate choice of a control arm remains contentious. Particularly in the case of implementation interventions, locally available care is required as the comparator to address questions of comparative effectiveness. However, locally available care might be lower than standards set out in national guidelines. Third, while the need for access to effective interventions post-trial is widely recognized, it is often not possible to guarantee this upfront. Clarity on what is required of researchers and sponsors is needed. Fourth, there is a pressing need for ethics education and capacity building regarding cluster randomized trials in these settings.

conclusionWe identify four issues in cluster randomized trials conducted in low- and middle-income countries for which further ethical analysis and guidance is required.

Indexed as

Developing CountriesEthics, ResearchAnti-HIV AgentsCoronary Artery DiseaseDrug CombinationsFemaleHIVHIV InfectionsHIV TestingHumansInformed ConsentIranMalawiMaleRandomized Controlled Trials as TopicTreatment OutcomeAnti-HIV AgentsDrug CombinationsCluster randomized trialEquipoiseEthicsInformed consentLow- and middle-income countriesPost-trial accessResearch ethicsResearch ethics committee

Identifiers

PMID32295604
PMCPMC7161096

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.