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.
Statistics from Altmetric.com
If you wish to reuse any or all of this article please use the link below which will take you to the Copyright Clearance Center’s RightsLink service. You will be able to get a quick price and instant permission to reuse the content in many different ways.
Other content recommended for you
- Can unequal be more fair? A response to Andrew Avins
- Who is my brother's keeper?
- Should desperate volunteers be included in randomised controlled trials?
- Trust based obligations of the state and physician-researchers to patient-subjects
- Contextual equipoise: a novel concept to inform ethical implications for implementation research in low-income and middle-income countries
- Position statement on ethics, equipoise and research on charged particle radiation therapy
- Attitudes towards clinical research among cancer trial participants and non-participants: an interview study using a Grounded Theory approach
- Ethics and methods in surgical trials
- Randomised placebo-controlled trials of surgery: ethical analysis and guidelines
- The Ebola clinical trials: a precedent for research ethics in disasters