Can Unequal Be More Fair? Ethics, Subject Allocation, and Randomised Clinical Trials
Avins, Andrew L.
Journal of Medical Ethics. 1998 Dec; 24(6): 401-408.
Randomised clinical trials provide the most valid means of establishing the efficacy of clinical therapeutics. Ethical standards dictate that patients and clinicians should not consent to randomisation unless there is uncertainty about whether any of the treatment options is superior to the others ("equipoise"). However, true equipoise is rarely present; most randomised trials, therefore, present challenging ethical dilemmas. Minimising the tension between science and ethics is an obligation of investigators and clinicians. This article briefly reviews several techniques for addressing this issue and suggests that unbalanced randomisation, a technique rarely employed in current clinical trial practice, may be useful for enhancing the ethical design of human experimentation.
Showing items related by title, author, creator and subject.
Avins, Andrew L. (1998-12)
Inadequate Reporting of Research Ethics Review and Informed Consent in Cluster Randomised Trials: Review of Random Sample of Published Trials Taljaard, Monica; McRae, Andrew D; Weijer, Charles; Bennett, Carol; Dixon, Stephanie; Taleban, Julia; Skea, Zoe; Eccles, Martin P; Brehaut, Jamie C; Donner, Allan; Saginur, Raphael; Boruch, Robert F; Grimshaw, Jeremy M (2011-05-11)To investigate the extent to which authors of cluster randomised trials adhered to two basic requirements of the World Medical Association's Declaration of Helsinki and the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors' ...
Edwards, Sarah J.L.; Braunholtz, David A. (2000-06)In this paper, we respond to Andrew Avins' recent review of methods whose use he advocates in clinical trials, to make them more ethical. He recommends in particular, "unbalanced randomisation." However, we argue that, before ...