Unattainable equipoise in randomized controlled trials : staff views of a feasibility study of surgical treatments for segmental tibial fractures.
Equipoise
Interviews
Qualitative research
Segmental tibial fracture
Trauma
Trial
Journal
Bone & joint open
ISSN: 2633-1462
Titre abrégé: Bone Jt Open
Pays: England
ID NLM: 101770336
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
Jul 2021
Jul 2021
Historique:
entrez:
8
7
2021
pubmed:
9
7
2021
medline:
9
7
2021
Statut:
ppublish
Résumé
To explore staff experiences of a multicentre pilot randomized controlled trial (RCT) comparing intramedullary nails and circular frame external fixation for segmental tibial fractures. A purposeful sample of 19 staff (nine surgeons) involved in the study participated in an interview. Interviews explored participants' experience and views of the study and the treatments. The interviews drew on phenomenology, were face-to-face or by telephone, and were analyzed using thematic analysis. The findings identify that for the treatment of segmental tibial fractures equipoise was a theoretical ideal that was most likely unattainable in clinical practice. This was conveyed through three themes: the ambiguity of equipoise, where multiple definitions of equipoise and a belief in community equipoise were evident; an illusion of equipoise, created by strong treatment preferences and variation in collective surgical skills; and treating the whole patient, where the complexity and severity of the injury required a patient-centred approach and doing the best for the individual patient took priority over trial recruitment. Equipoise can be unattainable for rare injuries such as segmental tibial fractures, where there are substantially different surgical treatments requiring specific expertise, high levels of complexity, and a concern for poor outcomes. Surgeons are familiar with community equipoise. However, a shared understanding of factors that limit the feasibility of RCTs may identify instances where community equipoise is unlikely to translate into practice. Cite this article:
Identifiants
pubmed: 34236209
doi: 10.1302/2633-1462.27.BJO-2021-0055.R1
pmc: PMC8325976
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Pagination
486-492Références
J Med Philos. 2007 Mar-Apr;32(2):135-50
pubmed: 17454419
Bone Joint Res. 2016 Oct;5(10):444-452
pubmed: 27765735
ANZ J Surg. 2017 Mar;87(3):111-112
pubmed: 28253558
Bone Joint J. 2020 Jun;102-B(6):736-743
pubmed: 32475242
PLoS One. 2018 Nov 28;13(11):e0207260
pubmed: 30485337
Trials. 2007 Jan 27;8:4
pubmed: 17257440
Injury. 2017 Oct;48(10):2306-2310
pubmed: 28818324
J Clin Epidemiol. 2014 Aug;67(8):912-20
pubmed: 24811157
N Engl J Med. 1987 Jul 16;317(3):141-5
pubmed: 3600702
Bone Joint J. 2018 Apr 1;100-B(4):522-526
pubmed: 29629594
JAMA Surg. 2019 May 1;154(5):451-457
pubmed: 30916741
Trials. 2019 Aug 9;20(1):492
pubmed: 31399134
Trials. 2018 Sep 6;19(1):478
pubmed: 30189868