临床平衡的回顾:来自肿瘤试验的例子。

Majd A Hamaly, Karem H Alzoubi, Omar F Khabour, Ruba A Jaber, Wael Al-Delaimy
{"title":"临床平衡的回顾:来自肿瘤试验的例子。","authors":"Majd A Hamaly, Karem H Alzoubi, Omar F Khabour, Ruba A Jaber, Wael Al-Delaimy","doi":"10.2174/2772432817666211221164101","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"BACKGROUND\nThe current standards that govern clinical research have been shaped over the years through many historical, social, and political events. The third principle of the Belmont report, Justice, guides the scientific community toward equal distribution of benefits and risks in research involving human subjects. Clinical equipoise is the status of genuine uncertainty by the investigator about the superiority of one treatment arm over the other. The term clinical equipoise was proposed to provide an ethical ground to conduct randomized controlled clinical trials.\n\n\nOBJECTIVE\nThe objective of this review is to provide the reader with an overview about the emergence of the term equipoise and its utilization in randomized controlled trials.\n\n\nMETHODS\nIn the current review article, the major oncology clinical trials and relevant patents were reviewed for the application/utilization of clinical equipoise.\n\n\nRESULTS\nThe concept of clinical equipoise has been challenged and different alternatives were proposed. Yet, these alternatives received numerous critiques and failed to fully replace equipoise. In addition, several patents related to anticancer agents tested in the described studies were examined. No specific reference was made as part of the patent to the status of clinical equipoise. Alternatively, a description of the study arms was provided.\n\n\nCONCLUSION\nThere is a need for revisiting the concept of equipoise and its suggested alternatives, for its ethical essence while addressing related challenges.","PeriodicalId":29871,"journal":{"name":"Current Reviews in Clinical and Experimental Pharmacology","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.3000,"publicationDate":"2023-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9992762/pdf/nihms-1875099.pdf","citationCount":"1","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Review of Clinical Equipoise: Examples from Oncology Trials.\",\"authors\":\"Majd A Hamaly, Karem H Alzoubi, Omar F Khabour, Ruba A Jaber, Wael Al-Delaimy\",\"doi\":\"10.2174/2772432817666211221164101\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"BACKGROUND\\nThe current standards that govern clinical research have been shaped over the years through many historical, social, and political events. The third principle of the Belmont report, Justice, guides the scientific community toward equal distribution of benefits and risks in research involving human subjects. Clinical equipoise is the status of genuine uncertainty by the investigator about the superiority of one treatment arm over the other. The term clinical equipoise was proposed to provide an ethical ground to conduct randomized controlled clinical trials.\\n\\n\\nOBJECTIVE\\nThe objective of this review is to provide the reader with an overview about the emergence of the term equipoise and its utilization in randomized controlled trials.\\n\\n\\nMETHODS\\nIn the current review article, the major oncology clinical trials and relevant patents were reviewed for the application/utilization of clinical equipoise.\\n\\n\\nRESULTS\\nThe concept of clinical equipoise has been challenged and different alternatives were proposed. Yet, these alternatives received numerous critiques and failed to fully replace equipoise. In addition, several patents related to anticancer agents tested in the described studies were examined. No specific reference was made as part of the patent to the status of clinical equipoise. Alternatively, a description of the study arms was provided.\\n\\n\\nCONCLUSION\\nThere is a need for revisiting the concept of equipoise and its suggested alternatives, for its ethical essence while addressing related challenges.\",\"PeriodicalId\":29871,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Current Reviews in Clinical and Experimental Pharmacology\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.3000,\"publicationDate\":\"2023-01-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9992762/pdf/nihms-1875099.pdf\",\"citationCount\":\"1\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Current Reviews in Clinical and Experimental Pharmacology\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.2174/2772432817666211221164101\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q4\",\"JCRName\":\"PHARMACOLOGY & PHARMACY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Current Reviews in Clinical and Experimental Pharmacology","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.2174/2772432817666211221164101","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"PHARMACOLOGY & PHARMACY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 1

摘要

背景:管理临床研究的现行标准是多年来通过许多历史、社会和政治事件形成的。贝尔蒙特报告的第三个原则是公正,它指导科学界在涉及人类受试者的研究中公平分配利益和风险。临床平衡是研究者对某一治疗方法优于另一治疗方法的真正不确定状态。提出临床平衡一词是为了提供进行随机对照临床试验的伦理依据。目的:这篇综述的目的是为读者提供均衡一词的出现及其在随机对照试验中的应用的概述。方法:通过对主要肿瘤临床试验和相关专利的综述,对临床平衡的应用和利用进行综述。结果:临床平衡的概念受到了挑战,并提出了不同的替代方案。然而,这些替代方案受到了许多批评,未能完全取代均衡。此外,还审查了与上述研究中测试的抗癌药物有关的几项专利。作为专利的一部分,没有具体提及临床平衡状态。另外,还提供了对研究对象的描述。结论:在解决相关挑战的同时,有必要重新审视平衡的概念及其伦理本质的建议替代方案。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
Review of Clinical Equipoise: Examples from Oncology Trials.
BACKGROUND The current standards that govern clinical research have been shaped over the years through many historical, social, and political events. The third principle of the Belmont report, Justice, guides the scientific community toward equal distribution of benefits and risks in research involving human subjects. Clinical equipoise is the status of genuine uncertainty by the investigator about the superiority of one treatment arm over the other. The term clinical equipoise was proposed to provide an ethical ground to conduct randomized controlled clinical trials. OBJECTIVE The objective of this review is to provide the reader with an overview about the emergence of the term equipoise and its utilization in randomized controlled trials. METHODS In the current review article, the major oncology clinical trials and relevant patents were reviewed for the application/utilization of clinical equipoise. RESULTS The concept of clinical equipoise has been challenged and different alternatives were proposed. Yet, these alternatives received numerous critiques and failed to fully replace equipoise. In addition, several patents related to anticancer agents tested in the described studies were examined. No specific reference was made as part of the patent to the status of clinical equipoise. Alternatively, a description of the study arms was provided. CONCLUSION There is a need for revisiting the concept of equipoise and its suggested alternatives, for its ethical essence while addressing related challenges.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
4.80
自引率
9.10%
发文量
55
期刊最新文献
Leveraging Generative AI for Drug Safety and Pharmacovigilance. The Effect of Dapagliflozin on Heart Function in Animal Models of Cardiac Ischemia, A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis Spinal Analgesia: Initial Preclinical and Clinical Studies. Efficacy and Safety of Glycopyrrolate in the Management of Organophosphate and Carbamate Poisoning: A Systematic Review. Translational Approach Using Advanced Therapy Medicinal Products for Huntington's Disease.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1