A statistical framework for quantifying clinical equipoise for individual cases during randomized controlled surgical trials

Article English OPEN
Parsons, Nicholas R ; Kulikov, Yuri ; Girling, Alan ; Griffin, Damian (2011)

Background\ud Randomised controlled trials are being increasingly used to evaluate new surgical interventions. There are a number of problematic methodological issues specific to surgical trials, the most important being identifying whether patients are eligible for recruitment into the trial. This is in part due to the diversity in practice patterns across institutions and the enormous range of available interventions that often leads to a low level of agreement between clinicians about both the value and the appropriate choice of intervention. We argue that a clinician should offer patients the option of recruitment into a trial, even if the clinician is not individually in a position of equipoise, if there is collective (clinical) equipoise amongst the wider clinical community about the effectiveness of a proposed intervention (the clinical equipoise principle). We show how this process can work using data collected from an ongoing trial of a surgical intervention.\ud \ud Results\ud We describe a statistical framework for the assessment of uncertainty prior to patient recruitment to a clinical trial using a panel of expert clinical assessors and techniques for eliciting, pooling and modelling of expert opinions. The methodology is illustrated using example data from the UK Heel Fracture Trial. The statistical modelling provided results that were clear and simple to present to clinicians and showed how decisions regarding recruitment were influenced by both the collective opinion of the expert panel and the type of decision rule selected.\ud \ud Conclusions\ud The statistical framework presented has potential to identify eligible patients and assist in the simplification of eligibility criteria which might encourage greater participation in clinical trials evaluating surgical interventions.
  • References (25)
    25 references, page 1 of 3

    1. Boutron I, Ravaud P, Nizaed R: The design and assessment of prospective randomised, controlled trials in orthopaedic surgery. Journal of Bone and Joint Surgery (British) 2007, 89:858-863.

    2. Horton R: Surgical research or comic opera: questions, but few answers. Lancet 1996, 347:984-985.

    3. McCulloch P, Taylor I, Sasako M, Lovett B, Griffin D: Randomised trials in surgery: problems and possible solutions. BMJ 2002, 324:1448-1451.

    4. Halpern SD: Evidence-based equipoise and research responsiveness. American Journal of Bioethics 2006, 6:1-4.

    5. Freedman B: Equipoise and the ethics of clinical research. New England Journal of Medicine 1987, 317:141-145.

    6. Chard JA, Lilford RJ: The use of equipoise in clinical trials. Social Science and Medicine 1998, 47:891-898.

    7. Jaynes ET: Probability theory: the logic of science Cambridge: Cambridge University Press; 2003.

    8. Spiegelhalter DJ, Abrams KR, Myles JP: Bayesian approaches to clinical trials and health-care evaluation New York: Wiley; 2004.

    9. Kandane JB, Wolfson LJ: Experiences in elicitation. The Statistician 1998, 47:3-19.

    10. Lilford R: Formal measurement of clinical uncertainty: prelude to a trial in perinatal medicine. BMJ 1994, 308:111-112.

  • Metrics
    No metrics available
Share - Bookmark