Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34620194›Full record

ReviewTrials2021

The challenge of equipoise in trials with a surgical and non-surgical comparison: a qualitative synthesis using meta-ethnography.

Loretta Davies, David Beard, Jonathan A Cook, Andrew Price, Ida Osbeck, Francine Toye

Open access · goldAbstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Trials, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 24 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
24citing papers in PubMed
8.0field-weighted citation impact, top 3% 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

24 citing papers in PubMed, 40 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Trial
  2. Trial
  3. Trial
  4. Trial
  5. Trial
  6. Trial
  7. Trial
  8. Article
  9. Review
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Ethical Considerations and Equipoise in Cancer Surgery.Indian journal of surgical oncology · 2024
    Review
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Review
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

6 authors at 2 institutions in 2 countries.

Loretta DaviesNuffield Department of Orthopaedics, Rheumatology and Musculoskeletal Sciences, Botnar Research Centre, University of Oxford, Headington, Oxford, OX3 7LD, UK. loretta.davies@ndorms.ox.ac.uk.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-4721-356X
David BeardNuffield Department of Orthopaedics, Rheumatology and Musculoskeletal Sciences, Botnar Research Centre, University of Oxford, Headington, Oxford, OX3 7LD, UK.
Jonathan A CookNuffield Department of Orthopaedics, Rheumatology and Musculoskeletal Sciences, Botnar Research Centre, University of Oxford, Headington, Oxford, OX3 7LD, UK.
Andrew PriceNuffield Department of Orthopaedics, Rheumatology and Musculoskeletal Sciences, Botnar Research Centre, University of Oxford, Headington, Oxford, OX3 7LD, UK.
Ida OsbeckLund University, Lund, Sweden.
Francine ToyeNuffield Orthopaedic Centre, Oxford University Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, Oxford, UK.
Nuffield Orthopaedic Centre · GBLund University · SE

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundRandomised controlled trials in surgery can be a challenge to design and conduct, especially when including a non-surgical comparison. As few as half of initiated surgical trials reach their recruitment target, and failure to recruit is cited as the most frequent reason for premature closure of surgical RCTs. The aim of this qualitative evidence synthesis was to identify and synthesise findings from qualitative studies exploring the challenges in the design and conduct of trials directly comparing surgical and non-surgical interventions.

methodsA qualitative evidence synthesis using meta-ethnography was conducted. Six electronic bibliographic databases (Medline, Central, Cinahl, Embase and PsycInfo) were searched up to the end of February 2018. Studies that explored patients' and health care professionals' experiences regarding participating in RCTs with a surgical and non-surgical comparison were included. The GRADE-CERQual framework was used to assess confidence in review findings.

resultsIn total, 3697 abstracts and 49 full texts were screened and 26 published studies reporting experiences of patients and healthcare professionals were included. The focus of the studies (24/26) was primarily related to the challenge of recruitment. Two studies explored reasons for non-compliance to treatment allocation following randomisation. Five themes related to the challenges to these types of trials were identified: (1) radical choice between treatments; (2) patients' discomfort with randomisation: I want the best treatment for me as an individual; (3) challenge of equipoise: patients' a priori preferences for treatment; (4) challenge of equipoise: clinicians' a priori preferences for treatment and (5) imbalanced presentation of interventions.

conclusionThe marked dichotomy between the surgical and non-surgical interventions was highlighted in this review as making recruitment to these types of trials particularly challenging. This review identified factors that increase our understanding of why patients and clinicians may find equipoise more challenging in these types of trials compared to other trial comparisons. Trialists may wish to consider exploring the balance of potential factors influencing patient and clinician preferences towards treatments before they start recruitment, to enable issues specific to a particular trial to be identified and addressed. This may enable trial teams to make more efficient considered design choices and benefit the delivery of such trials.

Indexed as

Anthropology, CulturalAttitude of Health PersonnelHealth PersonnelHumansPatient SelectionQualitative ResearchNon-surgical interventionsQualitative evidence synthesisRecruitment challengesSurgical interventions

Identifiers

PMID34620194
PMCPMC8495989
OpenAlexW3202168799

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.