Cargando…

Rationalisations for women-only randomised controlled trials in conditions that affect both sexes: a scoping review protocol

INTRODUCTION: Women have historically been under-represented in randomised controlled trials (RCTs), including many landmark RCTs that established standards of care. In light of this fact, some modern researchers are calling for replication of earlier landmark trials with women only. This approach i...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Matthewson, Ainsley, Bereznyakova, Olena, Dewar, Brian, Davis, Alexandra, Fedyk, Mark, Yogendrakumar, Vignan, Fergusson, Dean A, Gocan, Sophia, Dowlatshahi, Dar, Fahed, Robert, Shamy, Michel
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: BMJ Publishing Group 2021
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7888323/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/33593782
http://dx.doi.org/10.1136/bmjopen-2020-043370
_version_ 1783652138895802368
author Matthewson, Ainsley
Bereznyakova, Olena
Dewar, Brian
Davis, Alexandra
Fedyk, Mark
Yogendrakumar, Vignan
Fergusson, Dean A
Gocan, Sophia
Dowlatshahi, Dar
Fahed, Robert
Shamy, Michel
author_facet Matthewson, Ainsley
Bereznyakova, Olena
Dewar, Brian
Davis, Alexandra
Fedyk, Mark
Yogendrakumar, Vignan
Fergusson, Dean A
Gocan, Sophia
Dowlatshahi, Dar
Fahed, Robert
Shamy, Michel
author_sort Matthewson, Ainsley
collection PubMed
description INTRODUCTION: Women have historically been under-represented in randomised controlled trials (RCTs), including many landmark RCTs that established standards of care. In light of this fact, some modern researchers are calling for replication of earlier landmark trials with women only. This approach is ethically concerning, in that it would require some enrolled women to be deprived of treatments that are currently considered standard of care. OBJECTIVE: In an attempt to better understand the justification of a women-only approach to designing clinical trials, this study looks to systematically categorise the number of women-only RCTs for conditions that affect both men and women and the reasons given within the medical and philosophical literatures to perform them. METHODOLOGY: This scoping review of the literature will search, screen and select articles based on predetermined inclusion/exclusion criteria, after which a grounded theory approach will be used to synthesise the data. It is expected that there will be a variety of reasons given for why a women-only trial may be justified. Electronic databases that will be searched include MEDLINE, EMBASE, Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, Cochrane Clinical Trials Register, Web of Science Proceedings, ClinicalTrials.gov, Philosopher’s Index, Phil Papers, JSTOR, Periodicals Archive Online, Project MUSE and the National Reference Centre for Bioethics. SIGNIFICANCE: The scope of this study is to determine published rationales used to justify women-only randomised trials, both in the case of new trials and in the repetition of landmark trials. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: Research ethics board approval is not required for this study as there is no participant involvement. Results will be published as a stand-alone manuscript and will inform a larger project related to the ethics of a women-only RCT of carotid intervention for women with symptomatic high-grade carotid stenosis.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-7888323
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2021
publisher BMJ Publishing Group
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-78883232021-03-03 Rationalisations for women-only randomised controlled trials in conditions that affect both sexes: a scoping review protocol Matthewson, Ainsley Bereznyakova, Olena Dewar, Brian Davis, Alexandra Fedyk, Mark Yogendrakumar, Vignan Fergusson, Dean A Gocan, Sophia Dowlatshahi, Dar Fahed, Robert Shamy, Michel BMJ Open Ethics INTRODUCTION: Women have historically been under-represented in randomised controlled trials (RCTs), including many landmark RCTs that established standards of care. In light of this fact, some modern researchers are calling for replication of earlier landmark trials with women only. This approach is ethically concerning, in that it would require some enrolled women to be deprived of treatments that are currently considered standard of care. OBJECTIVE: In an attempt to better understand the justification of a women-only approach to designing clinical trials, this study looks to systematically categorise the number of women-only RCTs for conditions that affect both men and women and the reasons given within the medical and philosophical literatures to perform them. METHODOLOGY: This scoping review of the literature will search, screen and select articles based on predetermined inclusion/exclusion criteria, after which a grounded theory approach will be used to synthesise the data. It is expected that there will be a variety of reasons given for why a women-only trial may be justified. Electronic databases that will be searched include MEDLINE, EMBASE, Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, Cochrane Clinical Trials Register, Web of Science Proceedings, ClinicalTrials.gov, Philosopher’s Index, Phil Papers, JSTOR, Periodicals Archive Online, Project MUSE and the National Reference Centre for Bioethics. SIGNIFICANCE: The scope of this study is to determine published rationales used to justify women-only randomised trials, both in the case of new trials and in the repetition of landmark trials. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: Research ethics board approval is not required for this study as there is no participant involvement. Results will be published as a stand-alone manuscript and will inform a larger project related to the ethics of a women-only RCT of carotid intervention for women with symptomatic high-grade carotid stenosis. BMJ Publishing Group 2021-02-16 /pmc/articles/PMC7888323/ /pubmed/33593782 http://dx.doi.org/10.1136/bmjopen-2020-043370 Text en © Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2021. Re-use permitted under CC BY-NC. No commercial re-use. See rights and permissions. Published by BMJ. http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/ http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/This is an open access article distributed in accordance with the Creative Commons Attribution Non Commercial (CC BY-NC 4.0) license, which permits others to distribute, remix, adapt, build upon this work non-commercially, and license their derivative works on different terms, provided the original work is properly cited, appropriate credit is given, any changes made indicated, and the use is non-commercial. See: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/.
spellingShingle Ethics
Matthewson, Ainsley
Bereznyakova, Olena
Dewar, Brian
Davis, Alexandra
Fedyk, Mark
Yogendrakumar, Vignan
Fergusson, Dean A
Gocan, Sophia
Dowlatshahi, Dar
Fahed, Robert
Shamy, Michel
Rationalisations for women-only randomised controlled trials in conditions that affect both sexes: a scoping review protocol
title Rationalisations for women-only randomised controlled trials in conditions that affect both sexes: a scoping review protocol
title_full Rationalisations for women-only randomised controlled trials in conditions that affect both sexes: a scoping review protocol
title_fullStr Rationalisations for women-only randomised controlled trials in conditions that affect both sexes: a scoping review protocol
title_full_unstemmed Rationalisations for women-only randomised controlled trials in conditions that affect both sexes: a scoping review protocol
title_short Rationalisations for women-only randomised controlled trials in conditions that affect both sexes: a scoping review protocol
title_sort rationalisations for women-only randomised controlled trials in conditions that affect both sexes: a scoping review protocol
topic Ethics
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7888323/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/33593782
http://dx.doi.org/10.1136/bmjopen-2020-043370
work_keys_str_mv AT matthewsonainsley rationalisationsforwomenonlyrandomisedcontrolledtrialsinconditionsthataffectbothsexesascopingreviewprotocol
AT bereznyakovaolena rationalisationsforwomenonlyrandomisedcontrolledtrialsinconditionsthataffectbothsexesascopingreviewprotocol
AT dewarbrian rationalisationsforwomenonlyrandomisedcontrolledtrialsinconditionsthataffectbothsexesascopingreviewprotocol
AT davisalexandra rationalisationsforwomenonlyrandomisedcontrolledtrialsinconditionsthataffectbothsexesascopingreviewprotocol
AT fedykmark rationalisationsforwomenonlyrandomisedcontrolledtrialsinconditionsthataffectbothsexesascopingreviewprotocol
AT yogendrakumarvignan rationalisationsforwomenonlyrandomisedcontrolledtrialsinconditionsthataffectbothsexesascopingreviewprotocol
AT fergussondeana rationalisationsforwomenonlyrandomisedcontrolledtrialsinconditionsthataffectbothsexesascopingreviewprotocol
AT gocansophia rationalisationsforwomenonlyrandomisedcontrolledtrialsinconditionsthataffectbothsexesascopingreviewprotocol
AT dowlatshahidar rationalisationsforwomenonlyrandomisedcontrolledtrialsinconditionsthataffectbothsexesascopingreviewprotocol
AT fahedrobert rationalisationsforwomenonlyrandomisedcontrolledtrialsinconditionsthataffectbothsexesascopingreviewprotocol
AT shamymichel rationalisationsforwomenonlyrandomisedcontrolledtrialsinconditionsthataffectbothsexesascopingreviewprotocol