Equipoise in Neurosurgical Trials: Ethical Considerations and Challenges for Trial Conduct.

Abstract

The notorious Queen vs Dudley and Stephens case highlights the persistent potential conflict between safeguarding individual rights and serving the collective good, a dilemma that also arises in clinical research. Doctors face the challenge of providing the best possible care for each patient while contributing to medical progress through randomized clinical trials. A key concept is equipoise: Fried emphasized personal uncertainty, whereas Freedman proposed clinical equipoise, grounded in professional disagreement among experts. In neurosurgery, strong personal preferences, time-sensitive decisions, and limited evidence deepen these challenges, often reducing trial participation. The clinical judgment principle offers a potential solution by combining community-based and individual perspectives, allowing patient enrollment when both treatments are considered medically reasonable. This balanced approach supports ethical neurosurgical trials while promoting scientific advancement and protecting patient interests.