How are randomized clinical trials ethically justified? A systematic scoping review and thematic analysis of reasons that ethically justify randomized clinical trials.

OBJECTIVES: We set out to identify and count the types of reasons that are used in contemporary scholarship about the ethical permissibility of randomized trials, with the goal of developing a finer grained taxonomy of reasons than what is currently used by most participants in this literature. Because of its central role in justifying normative conclusions about randomized clinical trials (RCTs), we paid particular attention to both uses of the keyword "equipoise" and to the different concepts associated with it. METHODS: We conducted a scoping review to identify articles that included arguments that were likely to express reasons justifying RCTs. Text excerpts that expressed reasoning about the ethical permissibility of RCTs were extracted from relevant papers, and our data were generated by coding these excerpts using a mixed-methods protocol that fused elements of a grounded analysis and thematic coding. In our study, each theme corresponded to a specific type of reason that was contentful and stable when applied to our corpus of text extracts. RESULTS: Our search, screening, and text extraction process yielded 1,335 unique text excerpts, which then formed the basis of our coding. Although we found that 16 themes were sufficient to saturate this corpus, slightly less than 100% of our excerpts were covered by just 10 themes. We also tracked uses of 16 keywords in the text excerpts to explore whether there was any relationship between the keywords and our themes and found that keywords frequently did not cooccur with the presence of our themes. CONCLUSIONS: Our data and analysis support the conclusion that there is significant diversity in the types of reasons offered to justify RCTs; 10 themes effectively captured all the text excerpts we analyzed, and these themes cannot be reduced to the occurrence of relevant keywords. This result highlights how individuals and organizations may use different reasons to consider randomized trials to be justified and even when they use similar language the concepts they are referencing may not be consistent.

Protocol for a systematic scoping review of reasons given to justify the performance of randomised controlled trials.

INTRODUCTION: Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) are widely viewed to generate the most reliable medical knowledge. However, RCTs are not always scientifically necessary and therefore not always ethical. Unfortunately, it is not clear when an RCT is not necessary or how this should be established. This study seeks to systematically catalogue justifications offered throughout the medical and ethics literature for performing randomisation within clinical trials. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: We will systematically search electronic databases of the medical literature including MEDLINE, EMBASE, Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, Cochrane Clinical Trials Register, Web of Science Proceedings, ClinicalTrials.gov; databases of philosophical literature including Philosopher's Index, Phil Papers, JSTOR, Periodicals Archive Online, Project MUSE, National Reference Centre for Bioethics; the library catalogue at the University of Ottawa; bibliographies of retrieved papers; and the grey literature. We will also pursue suggestions from experts in the fields of medical ethics, philosophy and clinical trial methodology. Article screening, selection and data extraction will be performed by two independent reviewers based on prespecified inclusion/exclusion criteria. A third reviewer will be consulted to resolve any discrepancies. We will then extract the reasons given to justify randomisation using methodology established to extract data in a defensible, systematic manner. We will track the reasons given, their frequency of use and changes over time. Finally, using grounded theory, we will combine the reasons into broader themes. These themes will form the foundation of our subsequent analysis from qualitative and quantitative perspectives. This review will map existing arguments that clinicians, ethicists and philosophers use to ethically justify randomisation in clinical trials. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: No research ethics board approval is necessary because we are not examining patient-level data. This protocol complies with the reported guidance for conducting systematic scoping reviews. The findings of this paper will be disseminated via presentations and academic publication. In a subsequent phase of this research, we hope to engage with stakeholders and translate any recommendations derived from our findings into operational guidelines.

Many randomized clinical trials may not be justified: a cross-sectional analysis of the ethics and science of randomized clinical trials.

OBJECTIVE: We have proposed that three scientific criteria are important for the ethical justification of randomized clinical trials (RCTs): (1) they should be designed around a clear hypothesis; (2) uncertainty should exist around that hypothesis; (3) that uncertainty should be as established through a systematic review. We hypothesized that the majority of a sample of recently published RCTs would not explicitly incorporate these criteria, therefore rendering them potentially unjustified on scientific grounds. STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING: Cross-sectional analysis of all RCTs published in the New England Journal of Medicine and the Journal of the American Medical Association in 2015. Each article and protocol was reviewed for: (1) a clearly stated central hypothesis; (2) references to "equipoise," or "consensus;" (3) some indication of evidentiary uncertainty; (4) a meta-analysis or systematic review surrounding the hypothesis or study question. RESULTS: We included 208 RCT articles and 199 protocols. Among combined articles and protocols, 76% had a clearly stated hypothesis, 99% referenced some form of uncertainty, and 54% cited a relevant systematic review or meta-analysis. Only 44% of combined texts contained all three scientific criteria. There were few references to "equipoise" (10%) or "consensus" (11%), and those references to equipoise were most often inconsistent with accepted definitions. CONCLUSION: The majority of RCTs (56%) did not meet the three scientific criteria described previously and therefore may be scientifically and therefore ethically unjustified. We recommend that "equipoise," "clinical equipoise," and "lack of consensus" be abandoned as scientific criteria for RCTs and be replaced by an expectation that RCTs have a clearly stated, meaningful hypothesis around which uncertainty has been established through a systematic review of the literature.