The importance of the preservation of the ethical principle of equipoise in the design of clinical trials: Relative impact of the methodological quality domains on the treatment effect in randomized controlled trials

Accountability in Research

Volumn 10, Issue 4, 2003, Pages 301-315

  Djulbegovic, Benjamin ^a   Cantor, Alan ^a   Clarke, Mike ^b  

^a H LEE MOFFITT CANCER CENTER AND RESEARCH INSTITUTE   (United States)

^b UK COCHRANE CENTRE   (United Kingdom)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

PLACEBO;

ANALYTICAL APPROACH; ARTICLE; BIOMEDICAL AND BEHAVIORAL RESEARCH; CLASSIFICATION; CLINICAL TRIAL; CONSORT GROUP; CONTROL GROUP; CONTROLLED CLINICAL TRIAL; DRUG INDUSTRY; EMPIRICAL APPROACH; EPIDEMIOLOGY; ETHICS; EVALUATION; EXPERIMENTAL THERAPY; FINANCIAL MANAGEMENT; HUMAN; METHODOLOGY; PRACTICE GUIDELINE; QUALITY CONTROL; RANDOMIZATION; RANDOMIZED CONTROLLED TRIAL; STANDARD; STATISTICAL ANALYSIS; UNCERTAINTY;

ANALYTICAL APPROACH; BIOMEDICAL AND BEHAVIORAL RESEARCH; CONSORT GROUP; EMPIRICAL APPROACH;

BIAS (EPIDEMIOLOGY); CONTROL GROUPS; DATA INTERPRETATION, STATISTICAL; DRUG INDUSTRY; EVALUATION STUDIES; GUIDELINES; HUMANS; PLACEBOS; QUALITY CONTROL; RANDOM ALLOCATION; RANDOMIZED CONTROLLED TRIALS; RESEARCH DESIGN; RESEARCH SUPPORT; THERAPIES, INVESTIGATIONAL; UNCERTAINTY;

EID: 1542636166     PISSN: 08989621     EISSN: 15455815     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1080/714906103     Document Type: Article

References (32)

1. Altman, D. (1994). The scandal of poor medical research. BMJ, 308: 283-284.
2. Altman, D. G. (2002). Poor-quality medical research: What can journals do? JAMA, 287: 2765-2767.
3. Altman, D. G., Schultz, K. F., and Moher, D. (2001). For the CONSORT group: The revised CONSORT statement: Explanation and elaboration. Ann Intern Med, 134: 663-694.
4. Colditz, G. A., Miller, J. N., and Mosteller, F. (1989). How study design affects out-comes in comparisons of therapy. Stat Med, 8: 441-454.
5. Dickersin, K. (1997). How important is publication bias? A synthesis of available data. AIDS Edu Prev, 9: 15-21.
6. Djulbegovic, B. (2001a). Acknowledgment of uncertainty: A fundamental means to ensure scientific and ethical validity in clinical research. Current Oncology Reports, 3: 389-395.
7. Djulbegovic, B. (2001b). Placebo-controlled trials. Ann Intern Med, 135: 62-63.
8. Djulbegovic, B., Adams, J. R., Lyman, G. H., Lacevic, M., Hozo, I., Greenwich, M., and Bennett, C. L. (2001a). Evaluation and appraisal of randomized controlled trials in myeloma. Ann Oncology, 12: 1-7.
9. Djulbegovic, B., Bennet, C. L., Adams, J. R., and Lyman, G. H. (2000b). Industry-sponsored research. Lancet, 356: 2193-2194.
10. Djulbegovic, B., and Clarke, M. (2001). Scientific and ethical issues in equivalence trials. JAMA, 285: 1206-1208.
11. Djulbegovic, B., Clarke, M.(2001a). Ethical issues in the reporting of clinical trials. JAMA: 1577-1578.
12. Djulbegovic, B., Lacevic, M., Cantor, A., Fields, K. K., Bennett, C. L., Adams, J. R., Kuderer, N. M., and Lyman, G. H. (2000a). The uncertainty principle and industry-sponsored research. Lancet, 356: 635-638.
13. Djulbegovic, B., Lacevic, M., and Lyman, G. H. (2000c). Appraisal of randomized controlled trials in myeloma published from 1966-1998. Proc ASCO, 444a.
14. Edwards, S. J. L., Lilford, R. J., Braunholtz, D. A., Jackson, J. C., Hewison, J., and Thornton, J. (1998). Ethical issues in the design and conduct of randomized controlled trials. Health Technol Assessment, 2: 1-130.
15. Freedman, B. (1987). Equipoise and the ethics of clinical research. N Engl J Med, 317: 141-145.
16. Gilbert, J. P., McPeek, B., and Mosteller, F. (1977a). Progress in surgery and anesthesia: benefits and risks of innovative therapy. In Costs, risks and benefits of surgery, edited by J. P. Bubker, B. A. Barnes, and F. Mosteller. New York: Oxford University Press.
17. Gilbert, J. P., McPeek, B., and Mosteller, F. (1977b). Statistics and ethics in surgery and anesthesia. Science, 198: 684-689.
18. Juni, P., Altman, D. G., and Egger, M. (2001). Assessing the quality of randomised controlled trials. In Systematic reviews in health care. Meta-analysis in context, edited by M. Egger, G. D. Smith, and D. G. Atlman. London: BMJ.
19. Kumad, A., Loughran, T. P., Alsina, M., Durie, B. G. M., and Djulbegovic, B. (2003). Management of multiple myeloma: A systematic review and critical appraisal of published studies. Lancet Oncol, 4: 293-304.
20. Lexchin, J., Bero, L. A., Djulbegovic, B., and Clark, O. (2003). Pharmaceutical industry sponsorship and research outcome and quality: systematic review. BMJ, 326: 1167-1170.
21. Lilford, R. J., and Djulbegovic, B. (2001a). Equipoise and "the uncertainty principle" are not mutually exclusive. BMJ, 322: 795.
22. Lilford, R. J., and Djulbegovic, B. (2001b). Equipoise is essential principle of human experimentation. BMJ, 322: 299-300.
23. Mann, H. and Djulbegovic, B. (2003a). Choosing a control intervention for a randomized clinical trial. BMC Medical Research Methodology, 7.
24. Mann, H. and Djulbegovic, B. (2003b). Control of incommensurability biases-choice of a control intervention. In Chalmers, I.: http://www.jameslindlibrary.org/bias.html (submitted).
25. Moher, D., Schultz, K. F., Altman, D., for the CONSORT Group (2001). The CONSORT statement: Revised recommendations for improving the quality of reports of parallel-group randomized trials. JAMA, 285: 1987-1991.
26. Office for Human Research Protection (1993). IRB Guide. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services.
27. Rothman, K. J. and Michels, K. B. (1994). The continuing unethical use of placebo controls. N Engl J Med, 331: 394-398.
28. Rothman, K. J., Michels, K. B., and Baum, M. (2000). Declaration of Helsinki should be strengthened. For and against. BMJ, 321: 442-445.
29. Silverman, W. A. (1981). Gnosis and random allotment. Controlled Clin Trials, 2: 161-164.
30. Silverman, W. A. and Chalmers, I. (2000). Casting and drawing lots: A time-honoured way of dealing with uncertainty and for ensuring fairness [cited from August 2003]. Available from http://www.rcpe.ac.uk/controlled_trials/casting.html.
31. SYSTAT, Ver. 10.2. SPSS, Chicago.
32. West, S., King, V., Carey, T. S., Lohr, K. N., McKoy, N., Sutton, S. F., and Lux, L. (2002). Systems to rate the strength of scientific evidence. Evidence Report/Technology Assessment No. 47. Rockville, MD: Agency for Health Care Research and Quality.