ArticleClinical trials (London, England)2026
Uncertainty and novel clinical trial designs in oncology - when should equipoise matter?
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.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- New oncology trial designs and equipoise: Commentary on Heynemann et al.Clinical trials (London, England) · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
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
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.