75:, which requires evidence on behalf of the alternative treatments to be exactly balanced and thus yields a very fragile epistemic threshold for favoring one treatment over the other. Theoretical equipoise could be disturbed, for example, by something as simple as anecdotal evidence or a hunch on the part of the investigator. Clinical equipoise allows investigators to continue a trial until they have enough statistical evidence to convince other experts of the validity of their results, without a loss of ethical integrity on the part of the investigators.
47:
evidence is passed, there is no longer genuine uncertainty about the most beneficial treatment, so there is an ethical imperative for the investigator to provide the superior intervention to all participants. Ethicists contest the location of this evidentiary threshold, with some suggesting that investigators should only continue the study until they are convinced that one of the treatments is better, and with others arguing that the study should continue until the evidence convinces the entire expert medical community.
63:
patient with a need for one of these therapies." Researchers would thus face an ethical dilemma if they wanted to continue the study and collect more evidence, but had compelling evidence that one of the tested therapies was superior. They further stated that any results should be withheld from the researchers during the trial until completion to avoid this ethical dilemma and ensure the study’s completion.
54:(ICH) does not. With regard to clinical equipoise in practice, there is evidence that industry-funded studies disproportionately favor the industry product, suggesting unfavorable conditions for clinical equipoise. In contrast, a series of studies of national cancer institute funded trials suggests an outcome pattern consistent with clinical equipoise.
51:
99:
Miller and Brody argue that the notion of clinical equipoise is fundamentally misguided. The ethics of therapy and the ethics of research are two distinct enterprises that are governed by different norms. They state, "The doctrine of clinical equipoise is intended to act as a bridge between therapy
62:
Shaw and
Chalmers argued early on that "If the clinician knows, or has good reason to believe, that a new therapy (A) is better than another therapy (B), he cannot participate in a comparative trial of Therapy A versus Therapy B. Ethically, the clinician is obligated to give Therapy A to each new
104:
concerning the ethics of clinical trials, analogous to the tendency of patient volunteers to confuse treatment in the context of RCTs with routine medical care." Equipoise, they argue, only makes sense as a normative assumption for clinical trials if one assumes that researchers have therapeutic
46:
that the intervention or drug being tested will be superior to existing treatments, or that it will be completely ineffective. As the trial progresses, the findings may provide sufficient evidence to convince the investigator of the intervention or drug's efficacy. Once a certain threshold of
86:
interventions, where both trial and control arms are likely to have their own associated risks and hopes for benefits. The condition of the patient is also a factor in these risks. Ensuring that trials meet the standards of clinical equipoise is an important part of
34:. In short, clinical equipoise means that there is genuine uncertainty in the expert medical community over whether a treatment will be beneficial. This applies also for off-label treatments performed before or during their required clinical trials.
71:. Clinical equipoise occurs "if there is genuine uncertainty within the expert medical community — not necessarily on the part of the individual investigator — about the preferred treatment." Clinical equipoise is distinguished from
37:
An ethical dilemma arises in a clinical trial when the investigator(s) begin to believe that the treatment or intervention administered in one arm of the trial is significantly outperforming the other arms. A trial should begin with a
100:
and research, allegedly making it possible to conduct RCTs without sacrificing the therapeutic obligation of physicians to provide treatment according to a scientifically validated standard of care. This constitutes
66:
This method proved to be difficult in modern research, where many clinical trials have to be performed and analyzed by experts in that field. Freedman proposed a different approach to this ethical dilemma called
368:
50:
The extent to which major research ethics policies endorse clinical equipoise varies. For instance, the
Canadian Tri-Council Policy Statement endorses it, whereas the
270:
105:
obligations to their research participants. Further criticisms of clinical equipoise have been leveled by Robert Veatch and by Peter Ubel and Robert
Silbergleit.
241:
283:
Djulbegovic, B. (2009). "The
Paradox of Equipoise: The Principle That Drives and Limits Therapeutic Discoveries in Clinical Research".
326:
Miller, F. G. and H. Brody (2003). "A Critique of
Clinical Equipoise: Therapeutic Misconception in the Ethics of Clinical Trials".
91:
in this regard; it is likely that past trials that did not meet conditions of clinical equipoise suffered from poor recruitment.
78:
Equipoise is also an important consideration in the design of a trial from a patient’s perspective. This is especially true in
352:
Ubel, P. and Robert
Silbergleit (2011). "Behavioral Equipoise: A Way to Resolve Ethical Stalemates in Clinical Research".
79:
393:
378:
52:
International
Conference on Harmonisation of Technical Requirements for Registration of Pharmaceuticals for Human Use
249:
26:, provides the ethical basis for medical research that involves assigning patients to different treatment arms of a
114:
129:
101:
398:
403:
124:
134:
30:. The term was first used by Benjamin Freedman in 1987, although references to its use go back to 1795 by
88:
43:
264:
222:
204:
212:
196:
165:
119:
39:
217:
184:
27:
387:
31:
373:
300:
Shaw, L., A. M. & T. Chalmers (1970). "Ethics in
Cooperative Clinical Trials".
169:
242:"Tri-Council Policy Statement: Ethical Conduct for Research Involving Humans"
208:
200:
226:
83:
156:
Freedman, B. (1987). "Equipoise and the ethics of clinical research".
185:"Ethical reflections on Edward Jenner's experimental treatment"
313:Lilford, R. et al. (2004). "Trials in surgery".
16:Principle of medical research in clinical trials
8:
339:Veatch, R. ‘The Irrelevance of Equipoise’,
269:: CS1 maint: numeric names: authors list (
302:Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences
151:
149:
379:The Tri-Council Policy Statement (Canada)
216:
145:
262:
374:For and against, BMJ 2000;321:756–758
42:, and there should exist no decisive
7:
158:The New England Journal of Medicine
14:
354:The American Journal of Bioethics
369:Bioethics: An Anthology, pg. 429
1:
341:Journal of Medical Philosophy
80:randomized controlled trials
183:Davies, Hugh (March 2007).
170:10.1056/NEJM198707163170304
420:
343:, (2007), 32, (2): 167–183
328:The Hastings Center Report
315:British Journal of Surgery
115:Bracketing (phenomenology)
189:Journal of Medical Ethics
130:Principle of indifference
102:therapeutic misconception
246:Panel of Research Ethics
201:10.1136/jme.2005.015339
125:Precautionary principle
135:Suspension of judgment
24:principle of equipoise
73:theoretical equipoise
22:, also known as the
89:patient recruitment
394:Ethical principles
69:clinical equipoise
20:Clinical equipoise
330:, 33, (3): 19–28.
411:
357:
350:
344:
337:
331:
324:
318:
311:
305:
298:
292:
281:
275:
274:
268:
260:
258:
257:
248:. Archived from
237:
231:
230:
220:
180:
174:
173:
153:
419:
418:
414:
413:
412:
410:
409:
408:
399:Clinical trials
384:
383:
365:
360:
356:, 11, (2): 1–8.
351:
347:
338:
334:
325:
321:
312:
308:
304:, 169, 487–495.
299:
295:
282:
278:
261:
255:
253:
239:
238:
234:
182:
181:
177:
155:
154:
147:
143:
120:Cartesian doubt
111:
97:
60:
40:null hypothesis
17:
12:
11:
5:
417:
415:
407:
406:
404:Medical ethics
401:
396:
386:
385:
382:
381:
376:
371:
364:
363:External links
361:
359:
358:
345:
332:
319:
306:
293:
285:Cancer Control
276:
232:
195:(3): 174–176.
175:
164:(3): 141–145.
144:
142:
139:
138:
137:
132:
127:
122:
117:
110:
107:
96:
93:
59:
56:
28:clinical trial
15:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
416:
405:
402:
400:
397:
395:
392:
391:
389:
380:
377:
375:
372:
370:
367:
366:
362:
355:
349:
346:
342:
336:
333:
329:
323:
320:
316:
310:
307:
303:
297:
294:
291:(4): 342–347.
290:
286:
280:
277:
272:
266:
252:on 2013-12-03
251:
247:
243:
236:
233:
228:
224:
219:
214:
210:
206:
202:
198:
194:
190:
186:
179:
176:
171:
167:
163:
159:
152:
150:
146:
140:
136:
133:
131:
128:
126:
123:
121:
118:
116:
113:
112:
108:
106:
103:
94:
92:
90:
85:
81:
76:
74:
70:
64:
57:
55:
53:
48:
45:
41:
35:
33:
32:Edward Jenner
29:
25:
21:
353:
348:
340:
335:
327:
322:
314:
309:
301:
296:
288:
284:
279:
254:. Retrieved
250:the original
245:
235:
192:
188:
178:
161:
157:
98:
77:
72:
68:
65:
61:
49:
36:
23:
19:
18:
317:, 91, 6–16.
82:(RCTs) for
388:Categories
256:2018-06-11
141:References
209:0306-6800
95:Criticism
265:cite web
227:17329392
109:See also
84:surgical
44:evidence
240:TCPS2.
218:2598263
58:History
225:
215:
207:
271:link
223:PMID
205:ISSN
213:PMC
197:doi
166:doi
162:317
390::
289:16
287:.
267:}}
263:{{
244:.
221:.
211:.
203:.
193:33
191:.
187:.
160:.
148:^
273:)
259:.
229:.
199::
172:.
168::
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.