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...
Autores principales: | , , , , , , , , , , |
---|---|
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 |