Placebo comparisons are increasingly being considered for randomised trials assessing the efficacy of surgical interventions. The aim of this paper is to provide a summary of current knowledge on placebo controls in surgical trials. A placebo control is a complex type of comparison group and, although powerful, presents many challenges in a surgical setting. This review outlines what a placebosurgical control entails and our understanding of the placebo phenomenon in the context of surgery. It considers when placebo-surgical controls are acceptable (and when they are desirable) in terms of ethical arguments and regulatory requirements, how a placebo-surgical control should be designed, how to identify and mitigate risk for participants in placebo surgical trials, how such trials should be conducted and interpreted. Use of placebo control is justified in randomised controlled trials of surgical interventions provided there is a strong scientific and ethical rationale. Surgical placebos may be most appropriate where there is poor evidence on the efficacy of the procedure and a justified concern that results of a trial would be associated with high risk of bias, particularly due to the placebo effect. Feasibility work is recommended to optimise RCT design and conduct. This review forms an outline for best practice and provides guidance, in the form of the ASPIRE (Applying Surgical Placebo in Randomised Evaluations) checklist, for those considering the use of a placebo-control in a surgical randomised controlled trial.

Background

Despite increasing attention given to dementia by international governments and policy makers, the focus of end of life care has been on the dying trajectory of malignant disease. People with severe dementia have complex physical and psychological needs, yet the disease is not always recognised as terminal. Advance Care Planning involving people with dementia and their families can provide opportunities to discuss and later, initiate timely palliative care.We conducted a scoping review of studies exploring decisions associated with the EoLC of people with dementia. Eligible studies had to report on decision making at the end of life and by whom (the dying person, clinician/health professional or relative/family member).Twenty-five eligible studies reported on Advance Care Planning and end of life care decisions for individuals with dementia. The papers highlight several challenges that need to be addressed in order to provide adequate and effective care for people with dementia as they near the end of their life.

BackgroundThis paper reports the process and outcome of a consensus finding project, which began with a meeting at the Brocher Foundation in May 2015. The project sought to generate and reach consensus on standards of practice for Empirical Bioethics research. The project involved 16 academics from 5 different European Countries, with a range of disciplinary backgrounds.MethodsThe consensus process used a modified Delphi approach.ResultsConsensus was reached on 15 standards of practice, organised into 6 domains of research practice (Aims, Questions, Integration, Conduct of Empirical Work, Conduct of Normative Work; Training & Expertise).ConclusionsThrough articulating these standards we outline a position that encourages responses, and through those responses we will be able to identify points of agreement and contestation that will drive the conversation forward. In that vein, we would encourage researchers, funders and journals to engage with what we have proposed, and respond to us, so that our community of practice of empirical bioethics research can develop and evolve further.

No abstract

ObjectiveIn English paediatric practice, English law requires that parents and clinicians agree the ‘best interests’ of children and, if this is not possible, that the courts decide. Court intervention is rare and the concept of best interests is ambiguous. We report qualitative research exploring how the best interests standard operates in practice, particularly with decisions related to planned non-treatment. We discuss results in the light of accounts of best interests in the medical ethics literature.DesignWe conducted 39 qualitative interviews, exploring decision making in the paediatric intensive care unit, with doctors, nurses, clinical ethics committee members and parents whose children had a range of health outcomes. Interviews were audio-recorded and analysed thematically.ResultsParents and clinicians indicated differences in their approaches to deciding the child’s best interests. These were reconciled when parents responded positively to clinicians’ efforts to help parents agree with the clinicians’ view of the child’s best interests. Notably, protracted disagreements about a child’s best interests in non-treatment decisions were resolved when parents’ views were affected by witnessing their child’s physical deterioration. Negotiation was the norm and clinicians believed avoiding the courts was desirable.ConclusionsSensitivity to the long-term interests of parents of children with life-limiting conditions is defensible but must be exercised proportionately. Current approaches emphasise negotiation but offer few alternatives when decisions are at an impasse. In such situations, the instrumental role played by a child’s deterioration and avoidance of the courts risks giving insufficient weight to the child’s interests. New approaches to decision making are needed.

BackgroundSmart-home technologies, comprising environmental sensors, wearables and video are attracting interest in home healthcare delivery. Development of such technology is usually justified on the basis of the technology’s potential to increase the autonomy of people living with long-term conditions. Studies of the ethics of smart-homes raise concerns about privacy, consent, social isolation and equity of access. Few studies have investigated the ethical perspectives of smart-home engineers themselves. By exploring the views of engineering researchers in a large smart-home project, we sought to contribute to dialogue between ethics and the engineering community.MethodsEither face-to-face or using Skype, we conducted in-depth qualitative interviews with 20 early- and mid-career smart-home researchers from a multi-centre smart-home project, who were asked to describe their own experience and to reflect more broadly about ethical considerations that relate to smart-home design. With participants’ consent, interviews were audio-recorded, transcribed and analysed using a thematic approach.ResultsTwo overarching themes emerged: in ‘Privacy’, researchers indicated that they paid close attention to negative consequences of potential unauthorised information sharing in their current work. However, when discussing broader issues in smart-home design beyond the confines of their immediate project, researchers considered physical privacy to a lesser extent, even though physical privacy may manifest in emotive concerns about being watched or monitored. In ‘Choice’, researchers indicated they often saw provision of choice to end-users as a solution to ethical dilemmas. While researchers indicated that choices of end-users may need to be restricted for technological reasons, ethical standpoints that restrict choice were usually assumed and embedded in design.ConclusionsThe tractability of informational privacy may explain the greater attention that is paid to it. However, concerns about physical privacy may reduce acceptability of smart-home technologies to future end-users. While attention to choice suggests links with privacy, this may misidentify the sources of privacy and risk unjustly burdening end-users with problems that they cannot resolve. Separating considerations of choice and privacy may result in more satisfactory treatment of both. Finally, through our engagement with researchers as participants this study demonstrates the relevance of (bio)ethics as a critical partner to smart-home engineering.Electronic supplementary materialThe online version of this article (doi:10.1186/s12910-017-0183-z) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

Method Systematic literature searches identified randomized and nonrandomized prospective studies reporting clinical outcomes of CRC surgery. Outcomes were listed verbatim, categorized into broad groups (outcome domains) and examined for a definition (an appropriate textual explanation or a supporting citation). Outcome reporting was considered inconsistent if results of the outcome specified in the methods were not reported. Outcome reporting was compared between randomized and nonrandomized studies.Results Of 5644 abstracts, 194 articles (34 randomized and 160 nonrandomized studies) were included reporting 766 different clinical outcomes, categorized into seven domains. A mean of 14 AE 8 individual outcomes were reported per study. 'Anastomotic leak', 'overall survival' and 'wound infection' were the three most frequently reported outcomes in 72, 60 and 44 (37.1%, 30.9% and 22.7%) studies, respectively, and no single outcome was reported in every publication. Outcome definitions were significantly more often provided in randomized studies than in nonrandomized studies (19.0% vs 14.9%, P = 0.015). One-hundred and twenty-seven (65.5%) papers reported results of all outcomes specified in the methods (randomized studies, n = 21, 61.5%; nonrandomized studies, n = 106, 66.2%; P = 0.617).Conclusion Outcome reporting in CRC surgery lacks consistency and method. Improved standards of outcome measurement are recommended to permit data synthesis and transparent cross-study comparisons.