BMJ 2003;326:980-981 ( 3 May )

Education and debate

Ethics of clinical trials from a bayesian and decision analytic perspective: whose equipoise is it anyway?

Richard J Lilford, professor of clinical epidemiology. 

Department of Public Health and Epidemiology, Public Health Building, University of Birmingham, Edgbaston, Birmingham B15 2TT

r.j.lilford@bham.ac.uk

The first 150 words of the full text of this article appear below.

Should the equipoise of the patient, or that of the doctor, determine whether a patient enters a clinical trial? People asking patients to consent to trials are glossing over the ethical complexities. Choices should be based both on probabilities of events (which experts might know) and on the value that a patient places on those events (which only the patient can know)

A recent systematic review of the ethics of randomised clinical trials shows that they are often justified on the basis of the uncertainty principle. ^{1 2} The central idea is that people contribute to posterity at no cost to themselves, if the "best" treatment is "unknown." This idea has been used to describe the scientific case for trials and to guide informed consent when individuals are invited to participate. Two examples illustrate this. The United Kingdom's Central Office for Research Ethics Committees suggests the following wording for information leaflets given . . . [Full text of this article]

CiteULike    Complore    Connotea    Del.icio.us    Digg    Reddit    Technorati    What's this?

Relevant Articles

Reply to letters on ethics of trials from bayesian perspective

Richard J Lilford
BMJ 2003 327: 105. [Extract] [Full Text]

Ethics of clinical trials from bayesian perspective: Patients make fully informed choices about entry to trials

Ian H Kunkler
BMJ 2003 326: 1457. [Extract] [Full Text]

Ethics of clinical trials from bayesian perspective: Society's role is important

Stephen J Senn
BMJ 2003 326: 1456-1457. [Extract] [Full Text]

Ethics of clinical trials from bayesian perspective: Randomisation to clinical trials may solve dilemma of treatment choice in prostate cancer

Freddie C Hamdy, Jenny L Donovan, J Athene Lane, and David E Neal
BMJ 2003 326: 1456. [Extract] [Full Text] [PDF]

Ethics of clinical trials from bayesian perspective: Medical decision making should use posteriors, not priors

Stephen Frankel, Jonathan Sterne, and Shah Ebrahim
BMJ 2003 326: 1456. [Extract] [Full Text]

Website of the week: Patient power in randomised controlled trials

Christopher Martyn
BMJ 2003 326: 990. [Full Text]

This article has been cited by other articles:

• Willan, A., Kowgier, M. (2008). Determining optimal sample sizes for multi-stage randomized clinical trials using value of information methods. Clin Trials 5: 289-300 [Abstract]  
• Salanti, G., Higgins, J. P., Ades, A., Ioannidis, J. P. (2008). Evaluation of networks of randomized trials. Stat Methods Med Res 17: 279-301 [Abstract]  
• Salanti, G., Kavvoura, F. K., Ioannidis, J. P.A. (2008). Exploring the Geometry of Treatment Networks. ANN INTERN MED 148: 544-553 [Abstract] [Full text]  
• Byrne, M. M., Thompson, P. (2006). Collective equipoise, disappointment, and the therapeutic misconception: on the consequences of selection for clinical research.. Med Decis Making 26: 467-479 [Abstract]  
• Allmark, P, Mason, S (2006). Should desperate volunteers be included in randomised controlled trials?. J. Med. Ethics 32: 548-553 [Abstract] [Full text]  
• Edwards, A D, Azzopardi, D V (2006). Therapeutic hypothermia following perinatal asphyxia.. Arch. Dis. Child. Fetal Neonatal Ed. 91: F127-F131 [Abstract] [Full text]  
• Mann, H (2005). Controversial choice of a control intervention in a trial of ventilator therapy in ARDS: standard of care arguments in a randomised controlled trial. J. Med. Ethics 31: 548-553 [Abstract] [Full text]  
• Porter,, M., Bhattacharya, S. (2005). Investigation of staff and patients' opinions of a proposed trial of elective single embryo transfer. Hum Reprod 20: 2523-2530 [Abstract] [Full text]  
• Mann, H., London, A. J., Mann, J. (2005). Equipoise in the Enhanced Supression of the Platelet IIb/IIIa Receptor with Integrilin Trial (ESPRIT): a critical appraisal. Clin Trials 2: 233-243 [Abstract]  
• Retsas, S. (2004). Treatment at Random: The Ultimate Science or the Betrayal of Hippocrates?. JCO 22: 5005-5008 [Full text]  
• Lebowitz, B. D. (2004). Clinical Trials in Late Life: New Science in Old Paradigms. Gerontologist 44: 452-458 [Abstract] [Full text]  
• Joffe, S., Harrington, D. P, George, S. L, Emanuel, E. J, Budzinski, L. A, Weeks, J. C (2004). Satisfaction of the uncertainty principle in cancer clinical trials: retrospective cohort analysis. BMJ 328: 1463- [Abstract] [Full text]  
• Greenhalgh, T., Wessely, S. (2004). 'Health for me': a sociocultural analysis of healthism in the middle classes. Br Med Bull 69: 197-213 [Full text]  
• Garcia, J., Elbourne, D., Snowdon, C. (2004). Equipoise: a case study of the views of clinicians involved in two neonatal trials. Clin Trials 1: 170-178 [Abstract]  
• Thomson, H., Hoskins, R., Petticrew, M., Ogilvie, D., Craig, N., Quinn, T., Lindsay, G. (2004). Evaluating the health effects of social interventions. BMJ 328: 282-285 [Full text]  
• Tunis, S. R., Stryer, D. B., Clancy, C. M. (2003). Practical Clinical Trials: Increasing the Value of Clinical Research for Decision Making in Clinical and Health Policy. JAMA 290: 1624-1632 [Abstract] [Full text]  
• Lilford, R. J (2003). Reply to letters on ethics of trials from bayesian perspective. BMJ 327: 105-105 [Full text]  
• Hamdy, F. C, Donovan, J. L, Lane, J A., Neal, D. E (2003). Ethics of clinical trials from bayesian perspective: Randomisation to clinical trials may solve dilemma of treatment choice in prostate cancer. BMJ 326: 1456-1456 [Full text]  
• Kunkler, I. H (2003). Ethics of clinical trials from bayesian perspective: Patients make fully informed choices about entry to trials. BMJ 326: 1457-1457 [Full text]  
• Frankel, S., Sterne, J., Ebrahim, S. (2003). Ethics of clinical trials from bayesian perspective: Medical decision making should use posteriors, not priors. BMJ 326: 1456-1456 [Full text]  
• Senn, S. J (2003). Ethics of clinical trials from bayesian perspective: Society's role is important. BMJ 326: 1456-1457 [Full text]  

Rapid Responses:

Read all Rapid Responses

Clinical equipoise and decision analysis

Howard Mann
bmj.com, 5 May 2003 [Full text]

Rights and obligations

Stephen J Senn
bmj.com, 5 May 2003 [Full text]

Uncertainty about equipoise

Howard Mann
bmj.com, 9 May 2003 [Full text]

Bayesianism or reverentialism? Medical decision-making should use posteriors, not priors.

Stephen J Frankel, et al.
bmj.com, 15 May 2003 [Full text]

We cannot guarantee unaffected care

Neville W Goodman
bmj.com, 16 May 2003 [Full text]

Ethics of clinical trials

Ian H Kunkler
bmj.com, 17 May 2003 [Full text]

Bayesianism and equipoise: who's confused ?

Howard Mann
bmj.com, 19 May 2003 [Full text]

Re: Uncertainty about equipoise

Stephen J Senn
bmj.com, 21 May 2003 [Full text]

The power of language to manipulate.

Hazel Thornton
bmj.com, 30 May 2003 [Full text]

RANDOMISATION TO CLINICAL TRIALS OFFERS A SOLUTION TO TREATMENT CHOICE DILEMMA IN PROSTATE CANCER

Freddie C. Hamdy, et al.
bmj.com, 16 Jun 2003 [Full text]

Trials and errors

Otto P. Bleker
bmj.com, 11 Jul 2003 [Full text]