Many randomized clinical trials may not be justified: a cross-sectional analysis of the ethics and science of randomized clinical trials

Julie De Meulemeester, Mark Fedyk, Lucas Jurkovic, Michael Reaume, Dar Dowlatshahi, Grant Stotts, Michel Shamy

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

6 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

Objective: We have proposed that three scientific criteria are important for the ethical justification of randomized clinical trials (RCTs): (1) they should be designed around a clear hypothesis; (2) uncertainty should exist around that hypothesis; (3) that uncertainty should be as established through a systematic review. We hypothesized that the majority of a sample of recently published RCTs would not explicitly incorporate these criteria, therefore rendering them potentially unjustified on scientific grounds. Study Design and Setting: Cross-sectional analysis of all RCTs published in the New England Journal of Medicine and the Journal of the American Medical Association in 2015. Each article and protocol was reviewed for: (1) a clearly stated central hypothesis; (2) references to “equipoise,” or “consensus;” (3) some indication of evidentiary uncertainty; (4) a meta-analysis or systematic review surrounding the hypothesis or study question. Results: We included 208 RCT articles and 199 protocols. Among combined articles and protocols, 76% had a clearly stated hypothesis, 99% referenced some form of uncertainty, and 54% cited a relevant systematic review or meta-analysis. Only 44% of combined texts contained all three scientific criteria. There were few references to “equipoise” (10%) or “consensus” (11%), and those references to equipoise were most often inconsistent with accepted definitions. Conclusion: The majority of RCTs (56%) did not meet the three scientific criteria described previously and therefore may be scientifically and therefore ethically unjustified. We recommend that “equipoise,” “clinical equipoise,” and “lack of consensus” be abandoned as scientific criteria for RCTs and be replaced by an expectation that RCTs have a clearly stated, meaningful hypothesis around which uncertainty has been established through a systematic review of the literature.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)20-25
Number of pages6
JournalJournal of Clinical Epidemiology
Volume97
DOIs
StatePublished - May 2018
Externally publishedYes

Fingerprint

Ethics
Randomized Controlled Trials
Cross-Sectional Studies
Uncertainty
Meta-Analysis
New England
American Medical Association
Medicine
boldenone undecylenate

Keywords

  • Cross-sectional analysis
  • Epistemology
  • Equipoise
  • Ethics
  • Justification
  • Randomized controlled trials

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Epidemiology

Cite this

Many randomized clinical trials may not be justified : a cross-sectional analysis of the ethics and science of randomized clinical trials. / De Meulemeester, Julie; Fedyk, Mark; Jurkovic, Lucas; Reaume, Michael; Dowlatshahi, Dar; Stotts, Grant; Shamy, Michel.

In: Journal of Clinical Epidemiology, Vol. 97, 05.2018, p. 20-25.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

De Meulemeester, Julie ; Fedyk, Mark ; Jurkovic, Lucas ; Reaume, Michael ; Dowlatshahi, Dar ; Stotts, Grant ; Shamy, Michel. / Many randomized clinical trials may not be justified : a cross-sectional analysis of the ethics and science of randomized clinical trials. In: Journal of Clinical Epidemiology. 2018 ; Vol. 97. pp. 20-25.
@article{ca422ce359704e05bd4afc547462174e,
title = "Many randomized clinical trials may not be justified: a cross-sectional analysis of the ethics and science of randomized clinical trials",
abstract = "Objective: We have proposed that three scientific criteria are important for the ethical justification of randomized clinical trials (RCTs): (1) they should be designed around a clear hypothesis; (2) uncertainty should exist around that hypothesis; (3) that uncertainty should be as established through a systematic review. We hypothesized that the majority of a sample of recently published RCTs would not explicitly incorporate these criteria, therefore rendering them potentially unjustified on scientific grounds. Study Design and Setting: Cross-sectional analysis of all RCTs published in the New England Journal of Medicine and the Journal of the American Medical Association in 2015. Each article and protocol was reviewed for: (1) a clearly stated central hypothesis; (2) references to “equipoise,” or “consensus;” (3) some indication of evidentiary uncertainty; (4) a meta-analysis or systematic review surrounding the hypothesis or study question. Results: We included 208 RCT articles and 199 protocols. Among combined articles and protocols, 76{\%} had a clearly stated hypothesis, 99{\%} referenced some form of uncertainty, and 54{\%} cited a relevant systematic review or meta-analysis. Only 44{\%} of combined texts contained all three scientific criteria. There were few references to “equipoise” (10{\%}) or “consensus” (11{\%}), and those references to equipoise were most often inconsistent with accepted definitions. Conclusion: The majority of RCTs (56{\%}) did not meet the three scientific criteria described previously and therefore may be scientifically and therefore ethically unjustified. We recommend that “equipoise,” “clinical equipoise,” and “lack of consensus” be abandoned as scientific criteria for RCTs and be replaced by an expectation that RCTs have a clearly stated, meaningful hypothesis around which uncertainty has been established through a systematic review of the literature.",
keywords = "Cross-sectional analysis, Epistemology, Equipoise, Ethics, Justification, Randomized controlled trials",
author = "{De Meulemeester}, Julie and Mark Fedyk and Lucas Jurkovic and Michael Reaume and Dar Dowlatshahi and Grant Stotts and Michel Shamy",
year = "2018",
month = "5",
doi = "10.1016/j.jclinepi.2017.12.027",
language = "English (US)",
volume = "97",
pages = "20--25",
journal = "Journal of Clinical Epidemiology",
issn = "0895-4356",
publisher = "Elsevier USA",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Many randomized clinical trials may not be justified

T2 - a cross-sectional analysis of the ethics and science of randomized clinical trials

AU - De Meulemeester, Julie

AU - Fedyk, Mark

AU - Jurkovic, Lucas

AU - Reaume, Michael

AU - Dowlatshahi, Dar

AU - Stotts, Grant

AU - Shamy, Michel

PY - 2018/5

Y1 - 2018/5

N2 - Objective: We have proposed that three scientific criteria are important for the ethical justification of randomized clinical trials (RCTs): (1) they should be designed around a clear hypothesis; (2) uncertainty should exist around that hypothesis; (3) that uncertainty should be as established through a systematic review. We hypothesized that the majority of a sample of recently published RCTs would not explicitly incorporate these criteria, therefore rendering them potentially unjustified on scientific grounds. Study Design and Setting: Cross-sectional analysis of all RCTs published in the New England Journal of Medicine and the Journal of the American Medical Association in 2015. Each article and protocol was reviewed for: (1) a clearly stated central hypothesis; (2) references to “equipoise,” or “consensus;” (3) some indication of evidentiary uncertainty; (4) a meta-analysis or systematic review surrounding the hypothesis or study question. Results: We included 208 RCT articles and 199 protocols. Among combined articles and protocols, 76% had a clearly stated hypothesis, 99% referenced some form of uncertainty, and 54% cited a relevant systematic review or meta-analysis. Only 44% of combined texts contained all three scientific criteria. There were few references to “equipoise” (10%) or “consensus” (11%), and those references to equipoise were most often inconsistent with accepted definitions. Conclusion: The majority of RCTs (56%) did not meet the three scientific criteria described previously and therefore may be scientifically and therefore ethically unjustified. We recommend that “equipoise,” “clinical equipoise,” and “lack of consensus” be abandoned as scientific criteria for RCTs and be replaced by an expectation that RCTs have a clearly stated, meaningful hypothesis around which uncertainty has been established through a systematic review of the literature.

AB - Objective: We have proposed that three scientific criteria are important for the ethical justification of randomized clinical trials (RCTs): (1) they should be designed around a clear hypothesis; (2) uncertainty should exist around that hypothesis; (3) that uncertainty should be as established through a systematic review. We hypothesized that the majority of a sample of recently published RCTs would not explicitly incorporate these criteria, therefore rendering them potentially unjustified on scientific grounds. Study Design and Setting: Cross-sectional analysis of all RCTs published in the New England Journal of Medicine and the Journal of the American Medical Association in 2015. Each article and protocol was reviewed for: (1) a clearly stated central hypothesis; (2) references to “equipoise,” or “consensus;” (3) some indication of evidentiary uncertainty; (4) a meta-analysis or systematic review surrounding the hypothesis or study question. Results: We included 208 RCT articles and 199 protocols. Among combined articles and protocols, 76% had a clearly stated hypothesis, 99% referenced some form of uncertainty, and 54% cited a relevant systematic review or meta-analysis. Only 44% of combined texts contained all three scientific criteria. There were few references to “equipoise” (10%) or “consensus” (11%), and those references to equipoise were most often inconsistent with accepted definitions. Conclusion: The majority of RCTs (56%) did not meet the three scientific criteria described previously and therefore may be scientifically and therefore ethically unjustified. We recommend that “equipoise,” “clinical equipoise,” and “lack of consensus” be abandoned as scientific criteria for RCTs and be replaced by an expectation that RCTs have a clearly stated, meaningful hypothesis around which uncertainty has been established through a systematic review of the literature.

KW - Cross-sectional analysis

KW - Epistemology

KW - Equipoise

KW - Ethics

KW - Justification

KW - Randomized controlled trials

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85041623493&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=85041623493&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2017.12.027

DO - 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2017.12.027

M3 - Article

C2 - 29306063

AN - SCOPUS:85041623493

VL - 97

SP - 20

EP - 25

JO - Journal of Clinical Epidemiology

JF - Journal of Clinical Epidemiology

SN - 0895-4356

ER -