BMC Medical Ethics 22 (1):1-8 (2021)

Charles Weijer
University of Western Ontario
BackgroundEarly in the COVID-19 pandemic, the urgent need to discover effective therapies for COVID-19 prompted questions about the ethical problem of randomization along with its widely accepted solution: equipoise. In this scoping review, uses of equipoise in discussions of randomized controlled trials of COVID-19 therapies are evaluated to answer three questions. First, how has equipoise been applied to COVID-19 research? Second, has equipoise been employed accurately? And third, do concerns about equipoise pose a barrier to the ethical conduct of COVID-19 RCTs?MethodsGoogle Scholar and Pubmed were searched for articles containing substantial discussion about equipoise and COVID-19 RCTs. 347 article titles were screened, 91 full text articles were assessed, and 48 articles were included. Uses of equipoise were analyzed and abstracted into seven categories.Results and discussionApproximately two-thirds of articles used equipoise in a way that is consistent with the concept. They invoked equipoise to support RCTs of specific therapies, RCTs in general, and the early termination of RCTs after achieving the primary outcome. Approximately one-third of articles used equipoise in a manner that is inconsistent with the concept. These articles argued that physician preference, widespread use of unproven therapies, patient preference, or expectation of therapeutic benefit may undermine equipoise and render RCTs unethical. In each case, the purported ethical problem can be resolved by correcting the use of equipoise.ConclusionsOur findings highlight the continued relevance of equipoise as it supports the conduct of well-conceived RCTs and provides moral guidance to physicians and researchers as they search for effective therapies for COVID-19.
Keywords No keywords specified (fix it)
Categories No categories specified
(categorize this paper)
DOI 10.1186/s12910-021-00712-5
Edit this record
Mark as duplicate
Export citation
Find it on Scholar
Request removal from index
Revision history

Download options

PhilArchive copy

Upload a copy of this paper     Check publisher's policy     Papers currently archived: 65,636
External links

Setup an account with your affiliations in order to access resources via your University's proxy server
Configure custom proxy (use this if your affiliation does not provide a proxy)
Through your library

References found in this work BETA

What Questions Can a Placebo Answer?Spencer Phillips Hey & Charles Weijer - 2016 - Monash Bioethics Review 34 (1):23-36.

Add more references

Citations of this work BETA

No citations found.

Add more citations

Similar books and articles

Clinical Equipoise: Actual or Hypothetical Disagreement?Scott Gelfand - 2013 - Journal of Medicine and Philosophy 38 (6):590--604.
Clinical Equipoise and the Incoherence of Research Ethics.Franklin G. Miller & Howard Brody - 2007 - Journal of Medicine and Philosophy 32 (2):151 – 165.
Science and Behavior.Robert Silbergleit & Peter A. Ubel - 2011 - American Journal of Bioethics 11 (2):W1 - W2.
The Irrelevance of Equipoise.Robert M. Veatch - 2007 - Journal of Medicine and Philosophy 32 (2):167 – 183.
Equipoise: Beyond Rehabilitation?Jerry Menikoff - 2003 - Kennedy Institute of Ethics Journal 13 (4):347-351.
What Questions Can a Placebo Answer?Spencer Phillips Hey & Charles Weijer - 2016 - Monash Bioethics Review 34 (1):23-36.
Pulling the Plug on Clinical Equipoise: A Critique of Miller and Weijer.Fred Gifford - 2007 - Kennedy Institute of Ethics Journal 17 (3):203-226.


Added to PP index

Total views
3 ( #1,335,015 of 2,462,263 )

Recent downloads (6 months)
3 ( #223,271 of 2,462,263 )

How can I increase my downloads?


My notes