Evidence map›Paper›PMID 42725365›Full record

ArticleClinical trials (London, England)2026

Uncertainty and novel clinical trial designs in oncology - when should equipoise matter?

Sarah Heynemann, Wendy Lipworth, Sue-Anne McLachlan, Jennifer Philip, Tom John, Ian Kerridge

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Clinical trials (London, England), 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing 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

1 citing paper in PubMed.

  1. 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

6 authors.

Sarah HeynemannSydney Health Ethics, Faculty of Medicine and Health, The University of Sydney, NSW, Australia.ORCID 0000-0003-2205-5320
Wendy LipworthDepartment of Philosophy, Macquarie University, Sydney, NSW, Australia.ORCID 0000-0002-0234-657X
Sue-Anne McLachlanDepartment of Medical Oncology, St Vincent's Hospital, Melbourne, VIC, Australia.ORCID 0000-0002-1072-0322
Jennifer PhilipDepartment of Medicine, Faculty of Medicine, Dentistry and Health Sciences, The University of Melbourne, VIC, Australia.ORCID 0000-0002-3312-0645
Tom JohnDepartment of Medical Oncology, Peter MacCallum Cancer Centre, Melbourne, VIC, Australia.
Ian KerridgeSydney Health Ethics, Faculty of Medicine and Health, The University of Sydney, NSW, Australia.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Equipoise is usually considered a requirement for the ethical conduct of phase III randomised controlled trials. Notwithstanding theoretical critiques since the concept's initial proposal, equipoise has remained an important moral consideration. In oncology, many research questions are now pursued via clinical trial designs that diverge in various ways from conventional, fixed-design, two-arm randomised controlled trials. In this article, we outline the challenges that these new designs pose for implementing equipoise. Specifically, we consider challenges posed by trials incorporating seamless designs, 'immortal' trials, and trials incorporating adaptive techniques. While we note that equipoise retains a central role in the ethical evaluation of conventional randomised controlled trials, we contend that its utility as a moral construct is challenged by more recent, 'novel randomised controlled trial' designs. Consequently, other ethical tools become important in considering the different types of risk that trial participants are exposed to in modern clinical trial designs.

Indexed as

Clinical Trials as TopicMedical OncologyRandomized Controlled Trials as TopicResearch DesignTherapeutic EquipoiseEthics, ResearchHumansUncertaintyadaptive trialcancerequipoiseoncologyplatform trialrandomised controlled trialresearch ethics

Identifiers

PMID42725365
PMCPMC13624340

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.