Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) are widely taken as the gold standard for establishing causal conclusions. Ideally conducted they ensure that the treatment ‘causes’ the outcome—in the experiment. But where else? This is the venerable question of external validity. I point out that the question comes in two importantly different forms: Is the specific causal conclusion warranted by the experiment true in a target situation? What will be the result of implementing the treatment there? This paper explains how the (...) probabilistic theory of causality implies that RCTs can establish causal conclusions and thereby provides an account of what exactly that causal conclusion is. Clarifying the exact form of the conclusion shows just what is necessary for it to hold in a new setting and also how much more is needed to see what the actual outcome would be there were the treatment implemented. (shrink)

The transferability problem—whether the results of an experiment will transfer to a treatment population—affects not only Randomized Controlled Trials but any type of study. The problem for any given type of study can also, potentially, be addressed to some degree through many different types of study. The transferability problem for a given RCT can be investigated further through another RCT, but the variables to use in the further experiment must be discovered. This suggests we could do better on (...) the epistemological problem of transferability by promoting, in the repeated process of formulating public health guidelines, feedback loops of information from the implementation setting back to researchers who are defining new studies. (shrink)

Various publications claim that medical AI systems perform as well, or better, than clinical experts. However, there have been very few controlled trials and the quality of existing studies has been called into question. There is growing concern that existing studies overestimate the clinical benefits of AI systems. This has led to calls for more, and higher-quality, randomized controlled trials of medical AI systems. While this a welcome development, AI RCTs raise novel methodological challenges that have (...) seen little discussion. We discuss some of the challenges arising in the context of AI RCTs and make some suggestions for how to meet them. (shrink)

In recent years, there has been a surge of high-profile publications on applications of artificial intelligence (AI) systems for medical diagnosis and prognosis. While AI provides various opportunities for medical practice, there is an emerging consensus that the existing studies show considerable deficits and are unable to establish the clinical benefit of AI systems. Hence, the view that the clinical benefit of AI systems needs to be studied in clinical trials—particularly randomised controlled trials (RCTs)—is gaining ground. However, (...) an issue that has been overlooked so far in the debate is that, compared with drug RCTs, AI RCTs require methodological adjustments, which entail ethical challenges. This paper sets out to develop a systematic account of the ethics of AI RCTs by focusing on the moral principles of clinical equipoise, informed consent and fairness. This way, the objective is to animate further debate on the (research) ethics of medical AI. (shrink)

The present paper deals with the problem of evaluating empirical evidence for therapeutic decisions in medicine. The article discusses the views of Nancy Cartwright and John Worrall on the function that randomization plays in ascertaining causal relations with reference to the therapies applied. The main purpose of the paper is to present a general idea of alternative method of evaluating empirical evidence. The method builds on data analysis that makes use of rough set theory. The first attempts to apply the (...) method show that it is an interesting alternative to randomized controlled trials. (shrink)

This article focuses on maternal-fetal surgery (MFS) and on the concept of clinical equipoise that is a widely accepted requirement for conducting randomized controlled trials (RCT). There are at least three reasons why equipoise is unsuitable for MFS. First, the concept is based on a misconception about the nature of clinical research and the status of research subjects. Second, given that it is not clear who the research subject/s in MFS is/are, if clinical equipoise is to be used (...) as a criterion to test the ethical appropriateness of RCT, its meaning should be unambiguous. Third, because of the multidisciplinary character of MFS, it is not clear who should be in equipoise. As a result, we lack an adequate criterion for the ethical review of MFS protocols. In our account, which is based on Chervenak and McCullough's seminal work in the field of obstetric ethics, equipoise is abandoned. and RCT involving MFS can be ethically initiated when a multidisciplinary ethics review board (ERB), having an evidence-based assessment of the risks involved, is convinced that the value of answering the research hypothesis, for the sake of the health interests of future pregnant women carrying fetuses with certain congenital birth defects, justifies the actual risks research participants might suffer within a set limit of low/manageable. (shrink)

What kinds of evidence reliably support predictions of effectiveness for health and social care interventions? There is increasing reliance, not only for health care policy and practice but also for more general social and economic policy deliberation, on evidence that comes from studies whose basic logic is that of JS Mill's method of difference. These include randomized controlled trials, case–control studies, cohort studies, and some uses of causal Bayes nets and counterfactual-licensing models like ones commonly developed in econometrics. (...) The topic of this paper is the 'external validity' of causal conclusions from these kinds of studies. We shall argue two claims. Claim, negative: external validity is the wrong idea; claim, positive: 'capacities' are almost always the right idea, if there is a right idea to be had. If we are right about these claims, it makes big problems for policy decisions. Many advice guides for grading policy predictions give top grades to a proposed policy if it has two good Mill's-method-of difference studies that support it. But if capacities are to serve as the conduit for support from a method-of-difference study to an effectiveness prediction, much more evidence, and much different in kind, is required. We will illustrate the complexities involved with the case of multisystemic therapy, an internationally adopted intervention to try to diminish antisocial behaviour in young people. (shrink)

ABSTRACT“Evidence-based” methods, which most prominently include randomized controlled trials, have gained increasing purchase as the “gold standard” for assessing the effect of public policies. But the enthusiasm for evidence-based research overlooks questions about the reliability and applicability of experimental findings to diverse real-world settings. Perhaps surprisingly, a qualitative study of British educators suggests that they are aware of these limitations and therefore take evidence-based findings with a much larger grain of salt than do policy makers. Their experience suggests (...) that the real world is more heterogeneous than the world imagined by evidence-based policy enthusiasts. (shrink)

The COVID-19 pandemic touched off an unprecedented search for vaccines and treatments. Without question, the development of vaccines to prevent COVID-19 was an enormous scientific accomplishment. Further, the RECOVERY and Solidarity trials identified effective treatments for COVID-19. But all was not success. The urgent need for COVID-19 prevention and treatment fueled an embrace of risks—to research participants and to the reliability of the science itself—as allegedly necessary costs to speed scientific progress. Scientists and (even) ethicists supported overturning longstanding norms (...) protecting healthy volunteers in human challenge trials to speed vaccine development, but these trials led to no vaccines. Physicians, with the approval of research ethics committees, designed hundreds of unblinded, single-center clinical trials at high risk of bias to speed the identification of new treatments. But these clinical trials led to no treatments. The lesson for future pandemics is that the acceptance of greater risks to participants or science does not reliably lead to progress. We are better served by science that upholds the highest ethical and methodological standards. (shrink)

The current controversy as to the proper role of the placebo control in the evaluation of new treatments for schizophrenia requires an analysis that is sensitive to both ethical and scientific issues. Clinical equipoise, widely regarded as the moral foundation of the randomized controlled trial (RCT), requires the use of best available treatment as the control in RCT. Scientific criticisms of the use of an active control are examined and none present an insuperable barrier to the use of an (...) active control. Indeed, scrutiny of the most recent argument for the use of placebo controls, 'assay sensitivity', suggests that the use of placebo may be the cause of the problem pointed to. Scientific, regulatory, ethical and legal advantages of the use of an active control are described. While the use of a placebo control may be acceptable in carefully defined circumstances, in most cases the use of an active control in schizophrenia research is ethically and scientifically preferable. (shrink)

Nancy is ultimately most concerned about how to determine the relevance of evidence to implementation of evidence-based policy guidelines, in other words, the transferability of study results to a population different from the one that was studied and in which procedures or conditions are not the same as those in the study. And she is concerned about the privileged position Randomized Controlled Trials (RCTs) are given in the ranking schemes for evidence-based policy, because as she sees it RCTs (...) do not address this question while other methods do. RCTs are highly regarded because of their strength in ruling out confounding variables, but they can be weak on the transferability problem because the manipulations necessary for controlled experiment also guarantee that the setting and population are different from the situation and population targeted for application. However, both of these familiar points are simplifications that can be misleading. Some non-RCT type studies (e.g. soft interventions) can also be very good at ruling out confounding variables.1 And, as I will explain, the problems leading to the transferability problem – interacting variables and a difference between study and target populations – are present in any study, not unique to RCTs. In addition. (shrink)

This paper argues for more randomised controlled trials in educational research. Educational researchers have largely abandoned the methodology they helped to pioneer. This gold-standard methodology should be more widely used as it is an appropriate and robust research technique. Without subjecting curriculum innovations to a RCT then potentially harmful educational initiatives could be visited upon the nation's children.

The last two decades have witnessed intense debate over the ethical legitimacy of placebo controlled trials. Most of the arguments for and against the use of PCTs turn on one of the following issues: the compatibility of the obligations of clinicians and researchers with PCTs, the scientific merit of PCTs, and the influence of patients' and subjects' perceptions, ability to consent, expectations, and rights on the permissibility of PCTs. I introduce each of these categories and assess the principal (...) arguments in each group. I argue that, although some of the arguments against PCTs have limitations, they do inform the debate in significant ways by pointing to important constraints on PCTs. Those concerning patients' and subjects' perceptions, capacity to consent, expectations, and rights are particularly instructive. They do not, for the most part, sustain an absolute prohibition of PCTs, but they do suggest types of PCTs that are inappropriate and they indicate issues that must be addressed when PCTs are conducted. I argue that we should look to the reasonableness and permissibility of informed refusals of care to evaluate the extent to which a trial is a legitimate PCT ; to determine which potential subjects should be considered eligible to enroll in a PCT ; and to inform the language that should be used in describing the study as part of the informed consent process. (shrink)

The leading ethical position on placebo-controlled clinical trials is that whenever proven effective treatment exists for a given condition, it is unethical to test a new treatment for that condition against placebo. Invoking the principle of clinical equipoise, opponents of placebo-controlled trials in the face of proven effective treatment argue that they (1) violate the therapeutic obligation of physicians to offer optimal medical care and (2) lack both scientific and clinical merit. We contend that both of (...) these arguments are mistaken. Clinical equipoise provides erroneous ethical guidance in the case of placebo-controlled trials, because it ignores the ethically relevant distinction between clinical trials and treatment in the context of clinical medicine and the methodological limitations of active-controlled trials. Placebo controls are ethically justifiable when they are supported by sound methodological considerations and their use does not expose research participants to excessive risks of harm. (shrink)

In October 2013, the Declaration of Helsinki was revised a seventh time in its 50 year history. While it is the most widely accepted set of ethical principles for the protection of patients participating in medical research, the Declaration of Helsinki has also been subject of constant controversy. In particular, its paragraph on the use of placebo controls in clinical trials divides the research community into active-control and placebo orthodox proponents, both continuously demanding revisions of the Declaration of Helsinki (...) in favour of their position. The goal of the present project is to compare the mainly theoretical controversy with regulatory implementation. We distributed a questionnaire to national drug regulatory authorities from different countries to collect information on the authorities’ respective approaches to interpretation and implementation of the Declarations’ placebo paragraph in the conduct of medical research. Our findings suggest that the majority of drug regulatory authorities have established a practice of a middle ground, allowing placebo controls in some instances. Various interpretations of “serious harm” and “methodological reasons” are proposed as well as safeguards to avoid abuse of the option to use placebo-controls. Leaving the placebo paragraph open to various interpretation is a result of the Declaration of Helsinki’s character as a guidance document. With the current version controversy will continue. The Declaration should be continued to be strengthened to enforce the appreciation of conducting medical research with the highest ethical standard. (shrink)

The maternal‐fetal HIV transmission trials, conducted in developing countries in the 1990s, undoubtedly generated one of the most intense, high profile controversies in international research ethics. They sparked off a prolonged acrimonious and public debate and deeply divided the scientific community. They also provided an impetus for the revision of the Declaration of Helsinki – the most widely known guideline for international research. In this paper, I provide a brief summary of the context, outline the arguments for and against (...) the controversial use of placebo controls, and focus on particular areas that I believe merit further discussion or clarification. On balance, I argue that the researchers failed in their duties to protect the best interests of their research subjects, and to promote distributive justice. I discuss the difficulties of obtaining valid consent in this research context, and argue that it is unethical to inform women of their HIV status without at least offering them prophylactic treatment for their unborn children. A global view of justice, which endorses international equity, cannot be squared with international research guidelines that allow ‘local conditions’ to define the scope of duty to the control group. Finally, I suggest that the heated debate reflects a tension, if not an outright war, between two conflicting meta‐ethical systems, or incommensurable paradigms, that underpin scientific research involving human subjects. (shrink)

This paper considers the ethics of placebo‐controlled trials in developing countries, where a treatment already exists but is not available due to the low local standard of care. Such trials would not be permitted in more developed nations where a higher standard of care is available. I argue that there are moral intuitions against such trials, but a further intuition that if the trials were aimed at producing treatment options for the developing world, that would (...) be more permissible than if the trials were designed with the benefit of rich world people in mind. An approach based upon GA Cohen's work on interpersonal justifiability is suggested to allow us to explain these intuitions. Cohen's framework shows that these trials are ethically problematic because the inequality in healthcare provision between developing and developed nations that allows them to take place is at least partly the pharmaceutical corporations’ fault. Following Cohen's argument, this means the trials are non‐comprehensively justified. This allows for a more complete explanation of our intuitions than to consider such trials as cases of exploitation, because intuitions on the ethicacy of research can vary even when the exploitation relation remains the same. It is then established that there is good empirical evidence to believe that pharmaceutical corporations do fail the interpersonal justifiability test. The policy implications of this judgement are then considered, and it is suggested that the framework might be equally applicable to examining the permissibility of research conducted on vulnerable people within more developed nations. (shrink)

This article brings a historical perspective to explain the recent dissemination of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) as the new “gold standard” method to assess international development projects. Although the buzz around RCT evaluations dates from the 2000s, we show that what we are witnessing now is a second wave of RCTs, while a first wave began in the 1960s and ended by the early 1980s. Drawing on content analysis of 123 RCTs, participant observation, and secondary sources, we compare (...) the two waves in terms of the participants in the network of expertise required to carry out field experiments and the characteristics of the projects evaluated. The comparison demonstrates that researchers in the second wave were better positioned to navigate the political difficulties caused by randomization. We explain the differences in the expertise network and in the type of projects as the result of concurrent transformations in the fields of development aid and the economics profession. We draw on Andrew Abbott’s concept of “hinges,” as well as on Bourdieu’s concept of “homology” between fields, to argue that the similar positions and parallel struggles conducted by two groups of actors in the two fields served as the basis for a cross-field alliance, in which RCTs could function as a “hinge” linking together the two fields. (shrink)

BackgroundTrial registration helps minimize publication and reporting bias. In leading medical journals, 96% of published trials are registered. The aim of this study was to determine the proportion of randomized controlled trials published in key nursing journals that met criteria for timely registration.MethodsWe reviewed all RCTs published in three (two general, one mental health) nursing journals between August 2011 and September 2016. We classified the included trials as: 1. Not registered, 2. Registered but not reported in (...) manuscript, 3. Registered retrospectively, 4. Registered prospectively (before the recruitment of the first subject into the trial). 5. Timely registration (as 4 but the trial identification number is reported in abstract).ResultsWe identified 135 trials published in the three included journals. The majority (n = 78, 58%) were not registered. Thirty-three (24%) were retrospectively registered. Of the 24 (18%) trials that were prospectively registered, 11 (8%) met the criteria for timely registration.ConclusionsThere is an unacceptable difference in rates of trial registration between leading medical and nursing journals. Concerted effort is required by nurse researchers, reviewers and journal editors to ensure that all trials are registered in a timely way. (shrink)

We raise a problem of applicability of RCTs to validate nuclear diagnostic imaging tests. In spite of the wide application of PET and other similar techniques that use radiopharmaceuticals for diagnostic purposes, RCT-based evidence on their validity is sparse. We claim that this is due to a general conceptual problem that we call Prevalence of Treatment, which arises in connection with designing RCTs for testing any diagnostic procedure in the present context of medical research, and is particularly apparent in this (...) case. We also identify three practical reasons why RCTs do not qualify as the best option for PET validation, which have to do with specific characteristics of nuclear diagnostic imaging, and of radiopharmaceuticals. The paper is meant to contribute both to the philosophical discussion on the EBM hierarchy of evidence, and on the specific debate on radiopharmaceuticals in nuclear medicine. (shrink)

This article brings a historical perspective to explain the recent dissemination of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) as the new “gold standard” method to assess international development projects. Although the buzz around RCT evaluations dates from the 2000s, we show that what we are witnessing now is a second wave of RCTs, while a first wave began in the 1960s and ended by the early 1980s. Drawing on content analysis of 123 RCTs, participant observation, and secondary sources, we compare (...) the two waves in terms of the participants in the network of expertise required to carry out field experiments and the characteristics of the projects evaluated. The comparison demonstrates that researchers in the second wave were better positioned to navigate the political difficulties caused by randomization. We explain the differences in the expertise network and in the type of projects as the result of concurrent transformations in the fields of development aid and the economics profession. We draw on Andrew Abbott’s concept of “hinges,” as well as on Bourdieu’s concept of “homology” between fields, to argue that the similar positions and parallel struggles conducted by two groups of actors in the two fields served as the basis for a cross-field alliance, in which RCTs could function as a “hinge” linking together the two fields. (shrink)

The randomised controlled trial (RCT) constitutes a quantitative, comparative, controlled study of a particular treatment, and provides invaluable evidence regarding its pharmacotherapeutic efficacy. These studies are generally predicated upon the ethical principle of clinical equipoise. However, this may be insufficient to justify withholding treatment from a control group while assessing drug therapy in a potentially fatal disease. Thus, the criteria for randomisation, informed consent methodology and timing, and consideration of treatment options in such a scenario remain the province (...) of medical ethics. This paper addresses the need for an RCT of ribavirin in the treatment of Crimean Congo haemorrhagic fever, and highlights underlying ethical concerns in light of the current medical, virological and ethical literature. (shrink)

BackgroundThe ARRIVE (Animal Research: Reporting of In Vivo Experiments) guidelines are widely endorsed but compliance is limited. We sought to determine whether journal-requested completion of an ARRIVE checklist improves full compliance with the guidelines.MethodsIn a randomised controlled trial, manuscripts reporting in vivo animal research submitted to PLOS ONE (March–June 2015) were randomly allocated to either requested completion of an ARRIVE checklist or current standard practice. Authors, academic editors, and peer reviewers were blinded to group allocation. Trained reviewers performed outcome (...) adjudication in duplicate by assessing manuscripts against an operationalised version of the ARRIVE guidelines that consists 108 items. Our primary outcome was the between-group differences in the proportion of manuscripts meeting all ARRIVE guideline checklist subitems.ResultsWe randomised 1689 manuscripts (control: n = 844, intervention: n = 845), of which 1269 were sent for peer review and 762 (control: n = 340; intervention: n = 332) accepted for publication. No manuscript in either group achieved full compliance with the ARRIVE checklist. Details of animal husbandry (ARRIVE subitem 9b) was the only subitem to show improvements in reporting, with the proportion of compliant manuscripts rising from 52.1 to 74.1% (X2 = 34.0, df = 1, p = 2.1 × 10−7) in the control and intervention groups, respectively.ConclusionsThese results suggest that altering the editorial process to include requests for a completed ARRIVE checklist is not enough to improve compliance with the ARRIVE guidelines. Other approaches, such as more stringent editorial policies or a targeted approach on key quality items, may promote improvements in reporting. (shrink)

Use of a placebo control in surgical trials is a divisive issue. We argue that, in principle, placebo controls for surgery are necessary in the same way as for medicine. However, there are important differences between these types of trial, which both increase justification and limit application of surgical studies. We propose that surgical randomised placebo-controlled trials are ethical if certain conditions are fulfilled: the presence of equipoise, defined as a lack of unbiased evidence for efficacy of (...) an intervention; clinically important research question; the risk to patients is minimised and reasonable; there is uncertainty about treatment allocation rather than deception; there is preliminary evidence for efficacy, which justifies a placebo-controlled design; and ideally, the placebo procedure should have some direct benefit to the patient, for example, as a diagnostic tool. Placebo-controlled trials in surgery will most often be justified when surgery is performed to improve function or relieve symptoms and when objective outcomes are not available, while the risk of mortality or significant morbidity is low. In line with medical placebo-controlled trials, the surgical trial should be sufficiently powered and standardised so that its results are valid, consent should be valid, the standard treatment or rescue medication should be provided if possible, and after the trial, the patients should be told which treatment they received and there should be provision for post-trial care if the study may result in long-term negative effects. We comment and contrast our guidelines with those of the American Medical Association. (shrink)

Background: Although ethics consultation has been introduced to clinical practice for many years, the results of empirical studies to evaluate the effectiveness of ethics consultation are still controversial. The design of randomised controlled trials is considered the best research design to evaluate the effect of a clinical practice on the outcomes of interests. In order to understand the effects of ethics consultation, we conducted this search for studies with the design of randomised controlled trials to evaluate (...) ethics consultation.Objective: To provide an integrated review of studies with the design of randomised controlled trials to evaluate the effectiveness of ethics consultation.Methods: PubMed was used to search for studies using the randomised controlled trial design to evaluate the effectiveness of ethics consultation. The search term used was “ethics consultation”. The selection criterion was limited to “randomised controlled trial”.Results: Four articles that met both search criteria were retrieved. One of these articles reported a study that did not actually use the design of a randomised controlled trial and is excluded from the following discussion.Conclusions: To apply randomised controlled trials to evaluate the effectiveness of ethics consultation is extremely difficult as long as two issues are not resolved: the standardisation of ethics consultation and a placebo for ethics consultation to eliminate the placebo effect. Thus, the results generated by the design of randomised controlled trials are always problematic. Furthermore, as long as the two issues exist, the results generated by the design of quantitative research methods always pose problems. (shrink)

Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) are often seen as the 'gold standard' of evaluative research. However, whilst randomisation will ensure comparable groups, trials are still vulnerable to a range of biases that can undermine their internal validity. In this paper we describe a number of common threats to the internal validity of RCTs and methods of countering them. We highlight a number of examples from randomised trials in education and health care where problems of execution and analysis (...) of the RCT has undermined their internal validity. However, awareness of these potential biases can lead to careful planning to avoid or reduce their occurrence. If good quality randomised trials are to inform policy and practice in education then rigorous trials need to be designed that are the least susceptible to threats to their validity. (shrink)

Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) are a major success story, promising to improve science and policy. Despite some controversy, RCTs have spread toward Northern and Southern countries since the early 2000s. How so? Synthesizing previous research on this question, this article argues that favorable institutional conditions turned RCTs into “hinges” between the fields of science, politics, and business. Shifts toward behavioral economics, New Public Management, and evidence-based philanthropic giving led to a cross-fertilization among efforts in rich and poor countries, (...) involving states, international organizations, NGOs, researchers, and philanthropic foundations. This confluence of favorable institutional conditions and savvy social actors established a “global interstitial field” inside which support for RCTs has developed an unprecedented scope, influence, operational capacity, and professional payoff. However, the article further argues that the hinges holding together this global interstitial field are “squeaky” at best. Because actors inherit the illusio of their respective fields of origin—their central incentives and stakes—the interstitial field produces constant goal conflicts. Cooperation between academics and practitioners turns out to be plagued by tensions and contradictions. Based on this analysis, the article concludes that the global field of RCT support will probably differentiate into its constituent parts. As a result, RCTs may lose the special status they have gained among social science and policy evaluation methods, turning into one good technique among others. (shrink)

This short review piece is from a textbook on Medical Ethics.

Introduction No consent for health and medical research is appropriate when the criteria for a waiver of consent are met, yet some ethics committees and data custodians still require informed consent. Methods A single-blind parallel-group randomised controlled trial: 1129 families of children born at a South Australian hospital were sent information explaining data linkage of childhood immunisation and hospital records for vaccine safety surveillance with 4 weeks to opt in or opt out by reply form, telephone or email. A (...) subsequent telephone interview gauged the intent of 1026 parents (91%) in relation to their actions and the sociodemographic differences between participants and non-participants in each arm. Results The participation rate was 21% (n=120/564) in the opt-in arm and 96% (n=540/565) in the opt-out arm (χ2 (1 df) = 567.7, p<0.001). Participants in the opt-in arm were more likely than non-participants to be older, married/de facto, university educated and of higher socioeconomic status. Participants in the opt-out arm were similar to non-participants, except men were more likely to opt out. Substantial proportions did not receive, understand or properly consider study invitations, and opting in or opting out behaviour was often at odds with parents' stated underlying intentions. Conclusions The opt-in approach resulted in low participation and a biased sample that would render any subsequent data linkage unfeasible, while the opt-out approach achieved high participation and a representative sample. The waiver of consent afforded under current privacy regulations for data linkage studies meeting all appropriate criteria should be granted by ethics committees, and supported by data custodians. Trial registration number Australian New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry ACTRN12610000332022. (shrink)

Depuis le début des années 2000, les essais randomisés contrôlés ont connu un fulgurant retour sur le devant de la scène académique dans le domaine de l’économie du développement et plus généralement dans celui de l’évaluation des politiques publiques. Alors que ses partisans revendiquent une filiation avec les essais cliniques randomisés en médecine, ces derniers demeurent mal connus par les économistes. Cet article vise à combler ce manque en proposant une comparaison de l’usage et des limites des essais contrôlés randomisés (...) entre la médecine et l’économie. Nous montrons ainsi que si cette méthode est bien souvent placée au sommet de la hiérarchie des preuves en médecine, des voix critiques existent et méritent d’être prises en compte pour penser son application en économie. Nous soulignons également que le traitement du problème de la généralisation des résultats, très bien documenté en médecine, permet de nuancer l’intérêt de la méthode en économie. (shrink)

The use of placebo controls in clinical trials remains controversial. Ethical analysis and international ethical guidance permit the use of placebo controls in randomized trials when scientifically indicated in four cases: (1) when there is no proven effective treatment for the condition under study; (2) when withholding treatment poses negligible risks to participants; (3) when there are compelling methodological reasons for using placebo, and withholding treatment does not pose a risk of serious harm to participants; and, more controversially, (...) (4) when there are compelling methodological reasons for using placebo, and the research is intended to develop interventions that can be implemented in the population from which trial participants are drawn, and the trial does not require participants to forgo treatment they would otherwise receive. The concept of methodological reasons is essential to assessing the ethics of placebo controls in these controversial last two cases. This article sets out key considerations relevant to considering whether methodological reasons for a placebo control are compelling. (shrink)

The epistemological principles underlying randomized, controlled trials and evidence-based medicine generally have not received the attention they require. Broadly speaking, they are the application of work done over several centuries in philosophy and scientific method. The epistemological base is sound, but it also implies internal limitations, having to do with decreasing generality, which particularly affect application to psychological problems. The principles also have nothing to say about values. The question of the 'objective validity' of scientific method is briefly (...) discussed. (shrink)

ObjectiveTo explore the effect of modified constraint-induced movement therapy on upper limbs residual dysfunction for infancy with the sequelas of unilateral brachial plexus injury.MethodsSingle blind randomized controlled trial of mCIMT vs. standard care. An enrolling 31 infants with a uBPI exhibiting residual dysfunction of the affected upper limb for over 6 months was conducted. And functional outcomes pertaining to the affected upper limb were assessed via AMS, GRES, RHS, and MSS at 0, 3, and 6 months after treatment.ResultsNo differences (...) were found in baseline AMS, MSS, GRES, or RHS between the control and mCIMT groups [F = 0.062, P = 0.086; F = 0.483, P = 0.499; F = 0.272, P = 0.610; Z = −0.336, P = 7.373]. At the 3- and 6-month follow-up time points, AMS, MSS, and GRES scores were significantly improved over baseline in both groups [mCIMT: F = 183.750, 128.614, 110.085, P < 0.05; Control: F = 204.007, 75.246, 51.070, P < 0.05]. No significant differences were found between two treatment groups at the 3-month follow-up time point [F = 0.565, P = 0.465; F = 0.228, P = 0.641; F = 0.713, P = 0.413; Z = −0.666, P = 0.505]. However, at the 6-month follow-up time point, AMS and MSS scores were significantly improved in the mCIMT group relative to the control group [F = 8.077, P = 0.013; F = 18.692, P = 0.001].ConclusionmCIMT may benefit the rehabilitation of residual upper limb dysfunction associated with a uBPI in infants.Clinical Trial Registration[www.chictr.org.cn], identifier [ChiCTR1900022119]. (shrink)

Madole & Harden argue that just as the results of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) represent gains in causal knowledge and are useful, despite their limitations, so too are the findings of human behavior genetics. We argue that this analogy is misleading. Unlike RCTs, the results of human behavior genetics research cannot suggest efficacious interventions, nor point toward future research.

In 2003 and 2018 researchers discussed the perils of blind reliance on randomized controlled trials that have been substituted for medical experience and clinical acumen. Although these past articles do well to shed light on this issue, they neglect to discuss the topic of all-cause mortality in controlled trials. The current essay seeks to fill this void and expand the thought put into the appropriateness of all-cause mortality, especially when trials extend excessively far into the (...) future. To do this effectively the current essay leans on trial data from statin research and evidence from cancer screening—where researchers have explicitly called for all-cause mortality to be used in lieu of cancer or cardiovascular specific mortality. The issue with such an endpoint is that it obfuscates the issue at hand, namely that a specific intervention is intended to have a specific effect, not that a specific intervention is supposed to have any kind of effect. The effect(s) of medical interventions ought to be relevant to their intended mechanism of action and not simply any positive effect that can be pulled from trial data. (shrink)

Research over the past few decades has shown the positive influence that cognitive, social, and physical activities have on older adults’ cognitive and affective health. Especially interventions in health-related behaviors, such as cognitive activation, physical activity, social activity, nutrition, mindfulness, and creativity, have shown to be particularly beneficial. Whereas most intervention studies apply unimodal interventions, such as cognitive training, this study investigates the potential to foster cognitive and affective health factors of older adults by means of an autonomy-supportive multimodal intervention. (...) The intervention integrates everyday life recommendations for six evidence-based areas combined with psychoeducational information. This randomized controlled trial study compares the effects of a MMI and CT on those of a waiting control group on cognitive and affective factors, everyday life memory performance, and activity in everyday life. Three groups, including a total of 119 adults aged 65–86 years, attended a 5- or 10-week intervention. Specifically, one group completed a 10-week MMI, the second group completed 5-week of computer-based CT followed by a 5-week MMI, whereas the third group paused before completing the MMI for the last 5 weeks. All participants completed online surveys and cognitive tests at three test points. The findings showed an increase in the number and variability of activities in the everyday lives of all participants. Post hoc analysis on cognitive performance of MMI to CT indicate similar or better effects. Furthermore, results on far transfer variables showed interesting trends in favor of the MMI, such as increased well-being and attitude toward the aging brain. Also, the MMI group showed the biggest perceived improvements out of all groups for all self-reported personal variables. The results implicate a positive trend toward MMI on cognitive and affective factors of older adults. These tendencies show the potential of a multimodal approach compared to training a specific cognitive function. Moreover, the findings suggest that information about MMI motivates participants to increase activity variability and frequency in everyday life. Finally, the results could also have implications for the primary prevention of neurocognitive deficits and degenerative diseases. (shrink)

The Flash Technique of Eye Movement Desensitization and Reprocessing is widely recognized for its effectiveness in reducing the effects of emotional responses associated with traumatic memories. Using a randomized-controlled trial methodology, this study attempts to establish the efficacy of the EMDR Flash Technique. This study’s sample includes volunteers who were involved in traffic accidents and were given the randomized EMDR Flash Technique and Improving Mental Health Training for Primary Care Residents Stress management module. The participants were given a socio-demographic (...) data form, the Depression-Anxiety-Stress 21 scale, the Impact of Event Scale-Revised, and the WHOQOL Quality of Life scale. Participants were evaluated using measurements taken before and after the application, as well as a one-month follow-up. The mean age of the participants was 36.20 years and 82.1% were female. The DASS-21 Anxiety, IES-R Intrusion, Avoidance, Total, and WHOQOL-BREF Psychological score improvements of the EMDR Flash Technique group were shown to be statistically significant when compared to the mhGAP group. However, no statistically significant difference in the DASS-21 Depression, Stress, Impact of Event Scale-Revised Hyperarousal WHOQOL-BREF General Health, Physical, Social Relationships, and Environment component scores was reported between the two groups. The present study’s findings clearly demonstrate that the EMDR Flash technique, when applied to persons involved in traffic accidents, is successful in improving anxiety, intrusion, avoidance, total traumatic stress, and mental quality of life symptoms for at least 1 month. We believe that these findings will improve the reliability and applicability of the EMDR Flash Technique, which was tested for the first time in a clinical randomized-controlled trial. (shrink)

On the basis of critical discussions which have taken place in recent years in the Federal Republic of Germany, certain methodological, ethical and legal problems arising in relation to controlled trials are discussed. Because of methodological inconsistencies inherent in the experimental approach, the efficacy of a drug must in any case be judged by physicians. This leads to major ethical and even--at least in Germany--legal problems which impose considerable limits on the feasibility of controlled trials in (...) Germany. Editor's note: This paper is written at the invitation of the journal, following the considerable controversy on the ethics of clinical trials in the European Journal of Clinical Pharmacology (8-11). A critical commentary follows the paper with a short response from the authors and a further response from the commentator. (shrink)