Equipoise: asking the right questions for clinical trial design

Steven Joffe, Franklin G Miller
Nature Reviews. Clinical Oncology 2012 January 10, 9 (4): 230-5
Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) are central to evidence-based clinical and health-policy decisions. However, RCTs highlight the tension between the therapeutic obligations of the physician and the scientific obligations of the investigator. Clinical equipoise, defined as honest professional disagreement among expert clinicians about the preferred treatment, is often cited as the solution to this RCT dilemma. Nevertheless, there are numerous practical and conceptual problems with the notion of equipoise. These problems include its mistaken imposition of therapeutic norms on the scientific enterprise of research, the difficulty of knowing when a state of equipoise exists, the susceptibility of expert judgment to bias and weak evidence, and its inability to support evidence necessary for health-policy decisions. An alternate approach to risk-benefit assessment that is congruent with the scientific purpose of RCTs can better guide ethical evaluation of these trials, as discussed in this Perspective.

Full Text Links

Find Full Text Links for this Article


You are not logged in. Sign Up or Log In to join the discussion.

Related Papers

Remove bar
Read by QxMD icon Read

Save your favorite articles in one place with a free QxMD account.


Search Tips

Use Boolean operators: AND/OR

diabetic AND foot
diabetes OR diabetic

Exclude a word using the 'minus' sign

Virchow -triad

Use Parentheses

water AND (cup OR glass)

Add an asterisk (*) at end of a word to include word stems

Neuro* will search for Neurology, Neuroscientist, Neurological, and so on

Use quotes to search for an exact phrase

"primary prevention of cancer"
(heart or cardiac or cardio*) AND arrest -"American Heart Association"