Details
| Originalsprache | Englisch |
|---|---|
| Seiten (von - bis) | 102-112 |
| Seitenumfang | 11 |
| Fachzeitschrift | Clinical Ethics |
| Jahrgang | 19 |
| Ausgabenummer | 1 |
| Frühes Online-Datum | 25 Sept. 2022 |
| Publikationsstatus | Veröffentlicht - März 2024 |
| Extern publiziert | Ja |
Abstract
The principle of clinical equipoise has been variously characterized by ethicists and clinicians as fundamentally flawed, a myth, and even a moral balm. Yet, the principle continues to be treated as the de facto gold standard for conducting randomized control trials in an ethical manner. Why do we hold on to clinical equipoise, despite its shortcomings being widely known and well-advertised? This paper reviews the most important arguments criticizing clinical equipoise as well as what the most prominent proposed alternatives are. In the process, it evaluates the justification for continuing to use clinical equipoise as the gold standard for randomized control trials.
ASJC Scopus Sachgebiete
- Medizin (insg.)
- Medizin (sonstige)
- Pflege (insg.)
- Probleme, Ethik und rechtliche Aspekte
- Geisteswissenschaftliche Fächer (insg.)
- Philosophie
Zitieren
- Standard
- Harvard
- Apa
- Vancouver
- BibTex
- RIS
in: Clinical Ethics, Jahrgang 19, Nr. 1, 03.2024, S. 102-112.
Publikation: Beitrag in Fachzeitschrift › Artikel › Forschung › Peer-Review
}
TY - JOUR
T1 - Clinical equipoise
T2 - Why still the gold standard for randomized clinical trials?
AU - Asonganyi Folefac, Charlemagne
AU - Desmond, Hugh
N1 - Funding Information: The authors disclosed receipt of the following financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article: Hugh Desmond's work on this article was supported by the Horizon 2020 Framework Programme (grant number 741782).
PY - 2024/3
Y1 - 2024/3
N2 - The principle of clinical equipoise has been variously characterized by ethicists and clinicians as fundamentally flawed, a myth, and even a moral balm. Yet, the principle continues to be treated as the de facto gold standard for conducting randomized control trials in an ethical manner. Why do we hold on to clinical equipoise, despite its shortcomings being widely known and well-advertised? This paper reviews the most important arguments criticizing clinical equipoise as well as what the most prominent proposed alternatives are. In the process, it evaluates the justification for continuing to use clinical equipoise as the gold standard for randomized control trials.
AB - The principle of clinical equipoise has been variously characterized by ethicists and clinicians as fundamentally flawed, a myth, and even a moral balm. Yet, the principle continues to be treated as the de facto gold standard for conducting randomized control trials in an ethical manner. Why do we hold on to clinical equipoise, despite its shortcomings being widely known and well-advertised? This paper reviews the most important arguments criticizing clinical equipoise as well as what the most prominent proposed alternatives are. In the process, it evaluates the justification for continuing to use clinical equipoise as the gold standard for randomized control trials.
KW - Clinical equipoise
KW - clinical trials
KW - informed consent
KW - research ethics
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85139155068&partnerID=8YFLogxK
U2 - 10.1177/14777509221121107
DO - 10.1177/14777509221121107
M3 - Article
AN - SCOPUS:85139155068
VL - 19
SP - 102
EP - 112
JO - Clinical Ethics
JF - Clinical Ethics
SN - 1477-7509
IS - 1
ER -