Top

Trials

Published in:

Open Access 01-12-2018 | Research

Heterogeneous perception of the ethical legitimacy of unbalanced randomization by institutional review board members: a clinical vignette-based survey

Authors: Clarisse Dibao-Dina, Agnès Caille, Bruno Giraudeau

Published in: Trials | Issue 1/2018

Abstract

Background

Institutional review boards must guarantee the ethical acceptability of a randomized controlled trial before it is conducted. However, some may regard an unbalanced randomization ratio as reflecting an absence of uncertainty between the groups being compared. The objective was to assess institutional review board members’ perceptions of whether unbalanced randomization in randomized controlled trials is justified and ethically acceptable.

Methods

Institutional review board members worldwide completed a survey involving clinical vignettes modeling situations classically advocated to explain the use of unbalanced randomization. Institutional review board members were asked whether unbalanced randomization was justified and ethically sound. Answers were collected by using visual analog scales. Data were analyzed by principal component analysis, and a hierarchical ascending classification was created. Verbatim answers were assessed by qualitative content analysis.

Results

We analyzed responses from 148 institutional review board members. Three classes of respondents were identified: class 1 (n = 58; 39.2%), mostly skeptics who disagreed with unbalanced randomization, whatever the justification; class 2 (n = 46; 31.1%), believers who considered that unbalanced randomization was acceptable whatever the justification, except cost; and class 3 (n = 44; 29.7%), circumstantial believers for whom unbalanced randomization may be justified for methodological and safety issues but not cost or ethical issues. When institutional review board members were asked whether unbalanced randomization respected the equipoise principle, the mean quotation was low (4.5 ± 3.3 out of 10), especially for class 1 members.

Conclusions

Institutional review board members perceive unbalanced randomization heterogeneously in terms of its justification and its ethical validity.

Available only for authorised users

Dibao-Dina C, Caille A, Sautenet B, Chazelle E, Giraudeau B. Reporting of the rationale for unequal randomization in clinical trials is rare: a systematic review of the literature. J Clin Epidemiol. 2014;67(10):1070–5.CrossRefPubMed

Dumville JC, Hahn S, Miles JN, Torgerson DJ. The use of unequal randomisation ratios in clinical trials: a review. Contemp Clin Trials. 2006;27:1–12.CrossRefPubMed

Kuznetsova OM, Tymofyeyev Y. Preserving the allocation ratio at every allocation with biased coin randomization and minimization in studies with unequal allocation. Stat Med. 2012;31:701–23.CrossRefPubMed

Dibao-Dina C, Caille A, Giraudeau B. Unbalanced rather than balanced randomized controlled trials are more often positive in favor of the new treatment: an exposed and nonexposed study. J Clin Epidemiol. 2015;68(8):944–9. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclinepi.2015.03.007.CrossRefPubMed

Freedman B. Equipoise and the ethics of clinical research. N Engl J Med. 1987;317(3):141–5.CrossRefPubMed

Djulbegovic B, Kumar A, Glasziou PP, et al. New treatments compared to established treatments in randomized trials. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2012;10:MR000024. https://doi.org/10.1002/14651858. MR000024.pub3PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef

Hsieh HF, Shannon SE. Three approaches to qualitative content analysis. Qual Health Res. 2005;15(9):1277–88.CrossRefPubMed

Hey SP, Kimmelman J. The questionable use of unequal allocation in confirmatory trials. Neurology. 2014;82(1):77–9.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

Torgerson DJ, Campbell MK. Use of unequal randomization to aid the economic efficiency of clinical trials. BMJ. 2000;321(7263):759.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

10.

Diener HC, Dowson AJ, Ferrari M, Nappi G, Tfelt-Hansen P. Unbalanced randomization influences placebo response: scientific versus ethical issues around the use of placebo in migraine trials. Cephalalgia. 1999;19(8):699–700.CrossRefPubMed

11.

Djulbegovic B. Acknowledgment of uncertainty: a fundamental means to ensure scientific and ethical validity in clinical research. Curr Oncol Rep. 2001;3(5):389–95.CrossRefPubMed

12.

London AJ. Learning health systems, clinical equipoise and the ethics of response adaptive randomisation. J Med Ethics. 2018;44(6):409–15.CrossRefPubMed

13.

Djulbegovic B. Articulating and responding to uncertainties in clinical research. J Med Philos. 2007;32(2):79–98.CrossRefPubMed

14.

Avins AL. Can unequal be more fair? Ethics, subject allocation, and randomized clinical trials. J Med Ethics. 1998;24(6):401–8.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

15.

Cochrane. The Cochrane collaboration glossary and handbook for systematic reviews of interventions (www.cochrane.org). Cited 5 August 2018.

16.

Hey SP, London AJ, Weijer C, Rid A, Miller F. Is the concept of clinical equipoise still relevant to research? BMJ. 2017;359:j5787.CrossRefPubMed

17.

Wao H, Mhaskar R, Kumar A, et al. Uncertainty about effects is a key factor influencing institutional review boards' approval of clinical studies. Ann Epidemiol. 2014;24:734–40.CrossRefPubMed

Title: Heterogeneous perception of the ethical legitimacy of unbalanced randomization by institutional review board members: a clinical vignette-based survey
Authors: Clarisse Dibao-Dina
Agnès Caille
Bruno Giraudeau
Publication date: 01-12-2018
Publisher: BioMed Central
Published in: Trials / Issue 1/2018
Electronic ISSN: 1745-6215
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1186/s13063-018-2822-1

At a glance: The ONWARDS insulin icodec trials

Springer Medicine

Heterogeneous perception of the ethical legitimacy of unbalanced randomization by institutional review board members: a clinical vignette-based survey

Abstract

Background

Methods

Results

Conclusions

At a glance: The ONWARDS insulin icodec trials

Springer Medicine

Abstract

Background

Methods

Results

Conclusions

Please log in to get access to this content

Other articles of this Issue 1/2018

Microfinance for women at high risk for HIV in Kazakhstan: study protocol for a cluster-randomized controlled trial

Trial management– building the evidence base for decision-making

Correction to: Prevention of seroma following inguinal lymph node dissection with prophylactic, incisional, negative-pressure wound therapy (SEROMA trial): study protocol for a randomized controlled trial

Balancing ACT: evaluating the effectiveness of psychoeducation and Acceptance and Commitment Therapy (ACT) groups for people with bipolar disorder: study protocol for pilot randomised controlled trial

Zopiclone versus placebo for short-term treatment of insomnia in patients with advanced cancer: study protocol for a double-blind, randomized, placebo-controlled, clinical multicenter trial

An integrated-delivery-of-care approach to improve patient reported physical function and mental wellbeing after orthopedic trauma: study protocol for a randomized controlled trial