Jove
Visualize
Contact Us
JoVE
x logofacebook logolinkedin logoyoutube logo
ABOUT JoVE
OverviewLeadershipBlogJoVE Help Center
AUTHORS
Publishing ProcessEditorial BoardScope & PoliciesPeer ReviewFAQSubmit
LIBRARIANS
TestimonialsSubscriptionsAccessResourcesLibrary Advisory BoardFAQ
RESEARCH
JoVE JournalMethods CollectionsJoVE Encyclopedia of ExperimentsArchive
EDUCATION
JoVE CoreJoVE BusinessJoVE Science EducationJoVE Lab ManualFaculty Resource CenterFaculty Site
Terms & Conditions of Use
Privacy Policy
Policies

Related Concept Videos

Types of Biopharmaceutical Studies: Controlled and Non-Controlled Approaches01:23

Types of Biopharmaceutical Studies: Controlled and Non-Controlled Approaches

Biopharmaceutical studies constitute a vital field aiming to enhance drug delivery methods and refine therapeutic approaches, drawing upon diverse interdisciplinary knowledge. In research methodologies, the choice between controlled and non-controlled studies significantly influences the study's reliability and accuracy.
Non-controlled studies, commonly employed for initial exploration, lack a control group, rendering them susceptible to biases and external influences. In contrast, controlled...
Preclinical Development: Overview01:28

Preclinical Development: Overview

Preclinical development consists of a series of tests that ensure the safety and efficacy of a new therapeutic compound before it is tested in humans. There are four main phases to this process. First, safety pharmacology tests are conducted to ensure the drug does not produce any acutely harmful effects. These tests examine parameters such as bronchoconstriction, cardiac dysrhythmias, blood pressure changes, and ataxia. Next, preliminary toxicological testing is performed to determine the...
Bioequivalence studies: Biowaivers01:13

Bioequivalence studies: Biowaivers

In certain scenarios, in vitro dissolution tests can replace in vivo bioequivalence studies. This is particularly true when a drug product, though available in varying strengths, maintains proportional similarity in its active and inactive ingredients. In such cases, the need for in vivo bioequivalence studies for lower strength variants may be waived, provided dissolution tests and in vivo studies on the highest strength yield satisfactory results.Bioequivalence can be indicated through...
Bioequivalence of Drugs: Drugs with Multiple Indications01:09

Bioequivalence of Drugs: Drugs with Multiple Indications

The concept of therapeutic equivalence (TE) in drugs with multiple indications is complex. A generic drug may be therapeutically equivalent to a brand-name product for one specific indication, but this doesn't necessarily mean it's equivalent for all other indications. Evidence of TE in one patient group and bioequivalence shown in healthy volunteers can support—but not confirm—TE for other indications. However, definitive proof requires individual clinical studies for each indication due to...
Hazard Ratio01:12

Hazard Ratio

The hazard ratio (HR) is a widely used measure in clinical trials to compare the risk of events, such as death or disease recurrence, between two groups over time. It reflects the ratio of hazard rates—the instantaneous risk of the event occurring—between a treatment group and a control group. This measure provides valuable insights into the relative effectiveness of a treatment by assessing how the risk of an event differs between the two groups.
For example, in a clinical trial evaluating a...
Clinical Trials: Overview01:11

Clinical Trials: Overview

Clinical development focuses on how the drug will interact with the human body and encompasses four key phases of clinical trials, each serving a specific purpose in assessing the safety and effectiveness of new drugs. These phases overlap and build upon one another. Phase I involves a small group of healthy volunteers (typically 20-80 individuals) or, in cases where significant toxicity is expected, patients with the targeted disease, such as cancer or AIDS. The volunteers are tested for...

You might also read

Related Articles

Articles linked to this work by shared authors, journal, and citation graph.

Sort by
Same author

Xenotransplantation: Injustice, Harm, and Alternatives for Addressing the Organ Crisis.

The Hastings Center report·2025
Same author

Individual difference factors that predict evaluations and acceptance of authorized concealment for the reduction of nocebo side effects.

Patient education and counseling·2025
Same author

Clinical trials are not the solution to inequities in cancer care.

Gynecologic oncology·2025
Same author

Are Patients With Cancer Best Managed in a Clinical Trial?

JAMA·2024
Same author

The Use of Authorized Concealment to Minimize Nocebo Side Effects: A Survey of US Public Attitudes.

Psychotherapy and psychosomatics·2023
Same author

Ethical Outreach for Rural Cancer Care in the United States: Balancing Access With Optimal Clinical Outcomes.

JCO oncology practice·2023

Related Experiment Videos

Clinical equipoise and risk-benefit assessment.

Franklin G Miller1

  • 1Department of Bioethics, National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, MD 20892-1156, USA. fmiller@nih.gov

Clinical Trials (London, England)
|July 11, 2012
PubMed
Summary

Clinical equipoise, an ethical standard for randomized controlled trials (RCTs), is critically examined. The principle that patients shouldn't face uncompensated risks in control groups is found to be incoherent and should be abandoned for risk-benefit assessments.

Related Experiment Videos

Area of Science:

  • Medical ethics
  • Clinical trial design
  • Research methodology

Background:

  • Clinical equipoise is a cornerstone ethical principle for randomized controlled trials (RCTs).
  • It mandates that control groups should not receive treatments known to be inferior to the standard of care.
  • This principle aims to protect patients from uncompensated risks in research.

Purpose of the Study:

  • To critically evaluate the ethical arguments supporting clinical equipoise in risk-benefit assessments of RCTs.
  • To challenge the coherence of applying differential risk-benefit standards to therapeutic versus non-therapeutic research procedures.
  • To argue for the discontinuation of clinical equipoise as a requirement for RCT risk-benefit analysis.

Main Methods:

  • Critical examination of four key arguments defending clinical equipoise.
  • Analysis of the ethical implications of risk-benefit assessments in clinical trials.
  • Philosophical inquiry into the justification of ethical norms in research.

Main Results:

  • The examined arguments fail to adequately support clinical equipoise as a necessary ethical requirement.
  • A fundamental inconsistency exists in permitting net risks for non-therapeutic procedures while forbidding them for therapeutic ones.
  • The current application of clinical equipoise leads to an incoherent approach to risk-benefit evaluation.

Conclusions:

  • Clinical equipoise should be dispensed with as a principle for risk-benefit assessment in randomized controlled trials.
  • A more coherent ethical framework is needed for evaluating risks and benefits in all research procedures within RCTs.
  • Revisiting the ethical foundations of clinical trials is crucial for ensuring patient protection and research integrity.