2000
DOI: 10.1136/bmj.321.7263.756
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

For and against: Clinical equipoise and not the uncertainty principle is the moral underpinning of the randomised controlled trial FOR AGAINST

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
1

Citation Types

1
95
0
1

Year Published

2006
2006
2016
2016

Publication Types

Select...
6
2

Relationship

0
8

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 155 publications
(97 citation statements)
references
References 12 publications
1
95
0
1
Order By: Relevance
“…The primary reason being that clinical equipoise cannot be met; given the weight of recent evidence the majority of clinicians would now be reluctant to revert to previous treatments for IHs, and therefore cannot ethically choose at random which treatment to provide. 2 An RCT in this situation will have inherent flaws with confounding factors and bias.…”
Section: Sir Reply To Spiteri Cornish and Reddymentioning
confidence: 99%
See 2 more Smart Citations
“…The primary reason being that clinical equipoise cannot be met; given the weight of recent evidence the majority of clinicians would now be reluctant to revert to previous treatments for IHs, and therefore cannot ethically choose at random which treatment to provide. 2 An RCT in this situation will have inherent flaws with confounding factors and bias.…”
Section: Sir Reply To Spiteri Cornish and Reddymentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Rarely, MS arises de novo. 2,3 Here, we describe a case of MS presenting de novo with a white anterior chamber infiltrate. …”
mentioning
confidence: 99%
See 1 more Smart Citation
“…A surgical RCT may compare two different surgical procedures or may compare surgery with nonsurgical management or with the natural history of the disease being studied. For a surgeon-researcher to enrol patients in an RCT, it is widely accepted that a state of Bclinical equipoise^must exist [12].…”
mentioning
confidence: 99%
“…In this situation, when an alternative treatment is predicted to have about an equal probability of a good outcome, then RTCs are considered the optimal method to establish superiority of one treatment regimen over another. In other words, when the concept of equipoise-similar therapy has similar effects-is present, then it is considered ethical and scientifically reasonable to randomize patients to receive either of two (or more) arms of a trial trying to establish a superior benefit of competing treatments [19]. Accepting that AA is a rare disease, then patients from regions would need to be pooled if there was any hope of having RTCs large enough to find subtle differences in competing treatments.…”
mentioning
confidence: 99%