Can unequal be more fair? Ethics, subject allocation, and randomised clinical trials.
Identifieur interne : 00B581 ( Main/Exploration ); précédent : 00B580; suivant : 00B582Can unequal be more fair? Ethics, subject allocation, and randomised clinical trials.
Auteurs : A L Avins [États-Unis]Source :
- Journal of Medical Ethics [ 0306-6800 ] ; 1998-12.
Abstract
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.
Url:
- https://api.istex.fr/document/0250D9E830FEF501F9FA4FFB1B89914DC4EDCC41/fulltext/pdf
- http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC479141
DOI: 10.1136/jme.24.6.401
Affiliations:
Links toward previous steps (curation, corpus...)
- to stream Istex, to step Corpus: 000109
- to stream Istex, to step Curation: 000109
- to stream Istex, to step Checkpoint: 003D16
- to stream Main, to step Merge: 00BC94
- to stream Pmc, to step Corpus: 001857
- to stream Pmc, to step Curation: 001856
- to stream Pmc, to step Checkpoint: 004193
- to stream Ncbi, to step Merge: 00BD47
- to stream Ncbi, to step Curation: 00BD47
- to stream Ncbi, to step Checkpoint: 00BD47
- to stream Main, to step Merge: 00B845
- to stream Main, to step Curation: 00B581
Le document en format XML
<record><TEI wicri:istexFullTextTei="biblStruct"><teiHeader><fileDesc><titleStmt><title xml:lang="en">Can unequal be more fair? Ethics, subject allocation, and randomised clinical trials.</title><author wicri:is="90%"><name sortKey="Avins, A L" sort="Avins, A L" uniqKey="Avins A" first="A L" last="Avins">A L Avins</name></author></titleStmt><publicationStmt><idno type="wicri:source">ISTEX</idno><idno type="RBID">ISTEX:0250D9E830FEF501F9FA4FFB1B89914DC4EDCC41</idno><date when="1998" year="1998">1998</date><idno type="doi">10.1136/jme.24.6.401</idno><idno type="url">https://api.istex.fr/document/0250D9E830FEF501F9FA4FFB1B89914DC4EDCC41/fulltext/pdf</idno><idno type="wicri:Area/Istex/Corpus">000109</idno><idno type="wicri:explorRef" wicri:stream="Istex" wicri:step="Corpus" wicri:corpus="ISTEX">000109</idno><idno type="wicri:Area/Istex/Curation">000109</idno><idno type="wicri:Area/Istex/Checkpoint">003D16</idno><idno type="wicri:explorRef" wicri:stream="Istex" wicri:step="Checkpoint">003D16</idno><idno type="wicri:doubleKey">0306-6800:1998:Avins A:can:unequal:be</idno><idno type="wicri:Area/Main/Merge">00BC94</idno><idno type="wicri:source">PMC</idno><idno type="url">http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC479141</idno><idno type="RBID">PMC:479141</idno><idno type="wicri:Area/Pmc/Corpus">001857</idno><idno type="wicri:explorRef" wicri:stream="Pmc" wicri:step="Corpus" wicri:corpus="PMC">001857</idno><idno type="wicri:Area/Pmc/Curation">001856</idno><idno type="wicri:explorRef" wicri:stream="Pmc" wicri:step="Curation">001856</idno><idno type="wicri:Area/Pmc/Checkpoint">004193</idno><idno type="wicri:explorRef" wicri:stream="Pmc" wicri:step="Checkpoint">004193</idno><idno type="wicri:Area/Ncbi/Merge">00BD47</idno><idno type="wicri:Area/Ncbi/Curation">00BD47</idno><idno type="wicri:Area/Ncbi/Checkpoint">00BD47</idno><idno type="wicri:doubleKey">0306-6800:1998:Avins A:can:unequal:be</idno><idno type="wicri:Area/Main/Merge">00B845</idno><idno type="wicri:Area/Main/Curation">00B581</idno><idno type="wicri:Area/Main/Exploration">00B581</idno></publicationStmt><sourceDesc><biblStruct><analytic><title level="a" type="main" xml:lang="en">Can unequal be more fair? Ethics, subject allocation, and randomised clinical trials.</title><author wicri:is="90%"><name sortKey="Avins, A L" sort="Avins, A L" uniqKey="Avins A" first="A L" last="Avins">A L Avins</name><affiliation wicri:level="3"><country xml:lang="fr" wicri:curation="lc">États-Unis</country><wicri:regionArea>Veterans Affairs Medical Center, San Francisco</wicri:regionArea><placeName><settlement type="city">San Francisco</settlement><region type="state">Californie</region></placeName></affiliation></author></analytic><monogr></monogr><series><title level="j">Journal of Medical Ethics</title><title level="j" type="abbrev">J Med Ethics</title><idno type="ISSN">0306-6800</idno><idno type="eISSN">1473-4257</idno><imprint><publisher>BMJ Publishing Group Ltd and Institute of Medical Ethics</publisher><date type="published" when="1998-12">1998-12</date><biblScope unit="volume">24</biblScope><biblScope unit="issue">6</biblScope><biblScope unit="page" from="401">401</biblScope></imprint><idno type="ISSN">0306-6800</idno></series><idno type="istex">0250D9E830FEF501F9FA4FFB1B89914DC4EDCC41</idno><idno type="DOI">10.1136/jme.24.6.401</idno><idno type="href">medethics-24-401.pdf</idno><idno type="PMID">9873981</idno><idno type="Related-article-href">10860209</idno><idno type="related-article-ID">N0x8ec4340.0x960f2b8</idno><idno type="local">medethics;24/6/401</idno></biblStruct></sourceDesc><seriesStmt><idno type="ISSN">0306-6800</idno></seriesStmt></fileDesc><profileDesc><textClass></textClass><langUsage><language ident="en">en</language></langUsage></profileDesc></teiHeader><front><div type="abstract" xml:lang="en">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.</div></front></TEI><affiliations><list><country><li>États-Unis</li></country><region><li>Californie</li></region><settlement><li>San Francisco</li></settlement></list><tree><country name="États-Unis"><region name="Californie"><name sortKey="Avins, A L" sort="Avins, A L" uniqKey="Avins A" first="A L" last="Avins">A L Avins</name></region></country></tree></affiliations></record>Pour manipuler ce document sous Unix (Dilib)
EXPLOR_STEP=$WICRI_ROOT/Wicri/Sante/explor/LymphedemaV1/Data/Main/Exploration
HfdSelect -h $EXPLOR_STEP/biblio.hfd -nk 00B581 | SxmlIndent | more
Ou
HfdSelect -h $EXPLOR_AREA/Data/Main/Exploration/biblio.hfd -nk 00B581 | SxmlIndent | more
Pour mettre un lien sur cette page dans le réseau Wicri
{{Explor lien
|wiki= Wicri/Sante
|area= LymphedemaV1
|flux= Main
|étape= Exploration
|type= RBID
|clé= ISTEX:0250D9E830FEF501F9FA4FFB1B89914DC4EDCC41
|texte= Can unequal be more fair? Ethics, subject allocation, and randomised clinical trials.
}}
| This area was generated with Dilib version V0.6.31. |  |