| Title |
Statistical Power, the Belmont Report, and the Ethics of Clinical Trials
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Science and Engineering Ethics, November 2010
|
| DOI | 10.1007/s11948-010-9244-0 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Sara H. Vollmer, George Howard |
| Abstract |
Achieving a good clinical trial design increases the likelihood that a trial will take place as planned, including that data will be obtained from a sufficient number of participants, and the total number of participants will be the minimal required to gain the knowledge sought. A good trial design also increases the likelihood that the knowledge sought by the experiment will be forthcoming. Achieving such a design is more than good sense-it is ethically required in experiments when participants are at risk of harm. This paper argues that doing a power analysis effectively contributes to ensuring that a trial design is good. The ethical importance of good trial design has long been recognized for trials in which there is risk of serious harm to participants. However, whether the quality of a trial design, when the risk to participants is only minimal, is an ethical issue is rarely discussed. This paper argues that even in cases when the risk is minimal, the quality of the trial design is an ethical issue, and that this is reflected in the emphasis the Belmont Report places on the importance of the benefit of knowledge gained by society. The paper also argues that good trial design is required for true informed consent. |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 84 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United States | 2 | 2% |
| Ecuador | 1 | 1% |
| Unknown | 81 | 96% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 13 | 15% |
| Student > Master | 11 | 13% |
| Student > Bachelor | 11 | 13% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 8 | 10% |
| Professor | 4 | 5% |
| Other | 20 | 24% |
| Unknown | 17 | 20% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 14 | 17% |
| Business, Management and Accounting | 9 | 11% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 9 | 11% |
| Social Sciences | 7 | 8% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 5 | 6% |
| Other | 19 | 23% |
| Unknown | 21 | 25% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 3. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 03 January 2024.
All research outputs
#7,943,894
of 23,911,072 outputs
Outputs from Science and Engineering Ethics
#499
of 947 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#37,646
of 103,832 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Science and Engineering Ethics
#4
of 7 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,911,072 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 44th percentile – i.e., 44% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 947 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 12.3. This one is in the 37th percentile – i.e., 37% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 103,832 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 24th percentile – i.e., 24% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 7 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has scored higher than 3 of them.