A seminal paper by Miller and Brody [1] clearly laid the general framework on why we should abandon the term "clinical equipoise" in research. Their paper argued that the concept of equipoise (also ...
In this issue of the Journal of Clinical Oncology, Saltz et al 1 report the results of Cancer and Leukemia Group B (CALGB) 89803, a prospective randomized phase III trial of adjuvant therapy for ...
Discordance in Human Epidermal Growth Factor Receptor 2 (HER2) Phenotype Between Primary Tumor and Circulating Tumor Cells in Women With HER2-Negative Metastatic Breast Cancer The ideas and opinions ...
In conducting, participating in and teaching about randomized clinical trials, I've found it useful to recognize that uncertainty exists at 3 levels. Because the levels each have unique properties, ...
The 2016 CIOMS International ethical guidelines for health‐related research involving humans states that ‘health‐related research should form an integral part of disaster response’ and that, ...
The question “When are research risks reasonable in relation to anticipated benefits?” is at the heart of disputes in the ethics of clinical research. Institutional review boards are often criticized ...
Ironically, the proliferation of candidate drugs has often brought more angst than excitement. Faced with a positive result from an in vitro screen, researchers become entangled in a difficult ...
For more than a decade, the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) [23] has published a ranking of clinical evidence. [24] The rankings, however, are based on what clinical investigators have ...
In a rebuttal to Stanley Shapiro and Kathleen Glass,1 David Sackett2 argues that a term such as “clinical equipoise” is useful only if it has a consistent meaning for everyone, describes something ...
Some results have been hidden because they may be inaccessible to you
Show inaccessible results