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

doi:10.1136/bmj.326.7404.1456

BMJ 2003;326:1456 (28 June), doi:10.1136/bmj.326.7404.1456

Letter

Ethics of clinical trials from bayesian perspective

Randomisation to clinical trials may solve dilemma of treatment choice in prostate cancer

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

EDITOR—Lilford uses the example of the ProtecT study to raise concerns about recruitment to clinical trials, takingquotations out of context from Donovan et al.^{1
2} Lilfordasserts that in this study men are simply told that the besttreatment for localised prostate cancer is "uncertain" thatthey are not given enough information or time to question therecruiter about essential details about treatments and sideeffects; and that they are not given sufficient clinical information about their disease. None of these assertions is true, as weargue on bmj.com.³

The ProtecT trial has been subject to extensive peer reviewand is conducted according to MRC guidelines for good clinicalpractice, with scrutiny by steering and data monitoring committeesand the NHS research and development health technology assessmentprogramme. Outside the trial a patient's choice of treatmentis influenced by personal preference, the media, and recommendationsby potentially . . . [Full text of this article]

Freddie C Hamdy, professor of urology

Academic Urology Unit, Royal Hallamshire Hospital, Sheffield S10 2JF F.C.Hamdy@sheffield.ac.uk

Jenny L Donovan, professor of social medicine, J Athene Lane, research fellow

Department of Social Medicine, University of Bristol, Bristol BS8 2PR

David E Neal, professor of surgical oncology

Oncology Centre, Addenbrooke's Hospital, Box 193, Cambridge CB2 2QQ