equipoise

A forum to discuss Chronic Cerebrospinal Venous Insufficiency and its relationship to Multiple Sclerosis.

equipoise

Postby Cece » Wed Dec 12, 2012 11:56 am

Always good to learn a new word, especially one that supports the need to see CCSVI research done.

We thank Dr Reekers for his comments. We recognize and respect that differing views regarding the ethical permissibility of clinical research in CCSVI exist. As we stated, a strong scientific case has been made against CCSVI as a causative factor in multiple sclerosis, and we shared our doubt regarding its validity. Nonetheless, published clinical research suggests that endovascular intervention may be effective in at least a portion of involved patients. Therefore, we argue that a vital prerequisite for research to be conducted (ie, equipoise) exists. Equipoise in this instance is not an individual's sense of ambivalence regarding the efficacy of a novel treatment, but rather the existence of uncertainty within the scientific community regarding its efficacy compared with existing therapies or placebo.

http://archneur.jamanetwork.com/article ... id=1214757

CCSVI should be researched because equipoise exists.

Clinical equipoise, also known as the principle of equipoise, provides the ethical basis for medical research that involves assigning patients to different treatment arms of a clinical trial. The term was first used by Benjamin Freedman in 1987.
In short, clinical equipoise means that there is genuine uncertainty in the expert medical community over whether a treatment will be beneficial. This applies also for off-label treatments performed before or during their required clinical trials.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clinical_equipoise
Cece
Family Elder
 
Posts: 8990
Joined: Mon Jan 04, 2010 4:00 pm

Advertisement

Re: equipoise

Postby EJC » Wed Dec 12, 2012 3:27 pm

Splendid, thanks to Cece I am more intelligent this evening to the tune of one word.

I'll be looking for an opportunity to use it as soon as possible.

Keep up the good work!

We used to have a TV word game in the UK called "Call My Bluff" where the panelists would give three differing meanings of an obscure word each in an attempt to convince another team they were the correct definition. The job of the opposing team was to pick the correct one.

Equipoise would be absolutely perfect for Call my Bluff.

As you can see we really know how to live it up in the UK!
User avatar
EJC
Family Elder
 
Posts: 614
Joined: Tue Apr 20, 2010 3:00 pm
Location: Surrey, UK

Re: equipoise

Postby Cece » Wed Dec 12, 2012 8:09 pm

I would never have guessed the meaning of equipoise from the sound of the word itself. Equivalent and equine and poise would lead me astray. :)
Cece
Family Elder
 
Posts: 8990
Joined: Mon Jan 04, 2010 4:00 pm

Re: equipoise

Postby NHE » Thu Dec 13, 2012 4:59 am

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/Equipoise

e·qui·poise
n.
1. Equality in distribution, as of weight, relationship, or emotional forces; equilibrium.
2. A counterpoise; a counterbalance.
User avatar
NHE
Volunteer Moderator
 
Posts: 3246
Joined: Sat Nov 20, 2004 4:00 pm

Re: equipoise

Postby 1eye » Thu Dec 13, 2012 5:35 pm

Well coming from a place concerned more about money than patients, it's a bottom-line kind of word. It has been used lately in discussions of the work of John Nash, who was a games theorist who won the Nobel for Economics. It is also used lately as the latest economics fad, and a couple of other Nobels have been won. See this reference.

Movie about Nash.
"Try - Just A Little Bit Harder" - Janis Joplin
CCSVI procedure Albany Aug 2010
'MS' is over - if you want it
Patients sans/without patience
User avatar
1eye
Family Elder
 
Posts: 2876
Joined: Wed Mar 17, 2010 4:00 pm
Location: Kanata, Ontario, Canada

Re: equipoise

Postby Cece » Thu Mar 07, 2013 11:19 am

Interesting, 1eye, I missed that comment earlier.

I ran across 'equipoise' again. It might be relevant. ASTRAL was a renal artery stenting large randomized controlled trial.
ASTRAL has been criticized on a few fronts. First, the trial design is based on the “principle of equipoise”. Essentially, the investigators only enrolled patients in whom they were uncertain as to whether they would derive clinical benefit from revascularization. As such, many patients enrolled in the trial had lesions of dubious clinical significance, as more high-risk patients would not have been randomized. As an example, 40% of those enrolled had less than 70% stenosis, and some patients with stenoses as low as 60% were included.

http://renalfellow.blogspot.com/2009/11 ... trial.html
In any CCSVI trial, this might be relevant for patient selection.
Cece
Family Elder
 
Posts: 8990
Joined: Mon Jan 04, 2010 4:00 pm


Return to Chronic Cerebrospinal Venous Insufficiency (CCSVI)

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users