Login / Signup

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

Reidar K LieFrancis K L ChanChristine GradyVincent H NgDavid Wendler
Published in: BMC medical ethics (2017)
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.
Keyphrases
  • clinical trial
  • phase ii
  • clinical practice
  • open label
  • double blind
  • study protocol
  • phase iii
  • physical activity
  • randomized controlled trial
  • human health
  • placebo controlled