+ Site Statistics
+ Search Articles
+ PDF Full Text Service
How our service works
Request PDF Full Text
+ Follow Us
Follow on Facebook
Follow on Twitter
Follow on LinkedIn
+ Subscribe to Site Feeds
Most Shared
PDF Full Text
+ Translate
+ Recently Requested

Comparative effectiveness research: what to do when experts disagree about risks

Comparative effectiveness research: what to do when experts disagree about risks

Bmc Medical Ethics 18(1): 42

Ethical issues related to comparative effectiveness research, or research that compares existing standards of care, have recently received considerable attention. In this paper we focus on how Ethics Review Committees (ERCs) should evaluate the risks of comparative effectiveness research. We discuss what has been a prominent focus in the debate about comparative effectiveness research, namely that it is justified when "nothing is known" about the comparative effectiveness of the available alternatives. We argue that this focus may be misleading. Rather, we should focus on the fact that some experts believe that the evidence points in favor of one intervention, whereas other experts believe that the evidence favors the alternative(s). We will then introduce a case that illustrates this point, and based on that, discuss how ERCs should deal with such cases of expert disagreement. We argue that ERCs have a duty to assess the range of expert opinions and based on that assessment arrive at a risk judgment about the study under consideration. We also argue that assessment of expert disagreement is important for the assignment of risk level to a clinical trial: what is the basis for expert opinions, how strong is the evidence appealed to by various experts, and how can clinical trial monitoring affect the possible increased risk of clinical trial participation.

Please choose payment method:

(PDF emailed within 0-6 h: $19.90)

Accession: 059524210

Download citation: RISBibTeXText

PMID: 28629343

DOI: 10.1186/s12910-017-0202-0

Related references

Informed Consent for Comparative Effectiveness Research Should Not Consider the Risks of the Standard Therapies That Are Being Studied as Risks of the Research. Journal of Law, Medicine & Ethics 45(3): 365-374, 2017

Experts disagree on whether cost of publishing research will fall, as open access grows, MPs hear. BMJ 346: F2502-F2502, 2013

As wine experts disagree, consumers taste buds flourish: how two experts rate the 2004 Bordeaux vintage. Journal of Wine Research 24(4): 311-317, 2013

Risks (and benefits) in comparative effectiveness research trials. New England Journal of Medicine 369(10): 892-894, 2013

Risks and benefits of comparative effectiveness research in preterm infants: SUPPORT. Journal of Comparative Effectiveness Research 3(1): 17-21, 2014

Informed Consent for Comparative Effectiveness Research Should Include Risks of Standard Care. Journal of Law, Medicine & Ethics 45(3): 352-364, 2017

Why medical experts disagree. Rhode Island Medical Journal 36(8): 436-438, 1953

Comparative Effectiveness Research and the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results database: what is Comparative Effectiveness Research (CER) and why is it important?. Current Problems in Cancer 36(4): 208-215, 2012

Experts disagree on new AIDS guidelines. Modern Healthcare 20(34): 44-45, 1990

Thromboprophylaxis after caesarean: when even the 'experts' disagree. Bjog 123(13): 2163, 2015

Experts disagree on surface disinfectants. Australian Dental Journal 33(4): 336-337, 1988

Experts disagree over color of biomass. Nature Biotechnology 18(5): 490-490, 2000

Systematic assessment of benefits and risks: study protocol for a multi-criteria decision analysis using the Analytic Hierarchy Process for comparative effectiveness research. F1000research 2: 160, 2014

Plus disease in rop: why do experts disagree, and how can we improve diagnosis?. Journal of American Association for Pediatric Ophthalmology and Strabismus 21(4): E5-E6, 2017

Glycemic control in the hospital: what to do when experts disagree. American Family Physician 81(9): 1078, 2010