Free to Read
A critical analysis of evidence for using sham surgery in Parkinson's disease: implications for public health
Stephen Polgar,
Joanna Ng,
Stephen Polgar
School of Public Health, La Trobe University, Victoria
Search for more papers by this authorJoanna Ng
School of Public Health, La Trobe University, Victoria
Search for more papers by this authorStephen Polgar,
Joanna Ng,
Stephen Polgar
School of Public Health, La Trobe University, Victoria
Search for more papers by this authorJoanna Ng
School of Public Health, La Trobe University, Victoria
Search for more papers by this authorCorrespondence to: Mr Stephen Polgar, School of Public Health, Faculty of Health Sciences, La Trobe University, Kingsbury Drive, Bundoora, Victoria 3086. Fax: (03) 9479 1783; e-mail: [email protected]
Abstract
Sham surgery was introduced as a means for improving the methodological quality of surgical research and evaluation. The development of cellular-based surgical therapies for the treatment of Parkinson's disease provides an opportunity to carefully analyse the alleged methodological benefits of sham surgery. However, detailed analysis of the evidence does not support these hypothesised advantages. In this paper, we argue that sham surgery is a public health concern as vulnerable individuals are exposed to unnecessary and costly surgical procedures that have no benefits for ensuring rigorous health research.
References
- 1 Birrell B, Hawthorne L, Rapson V. The Outlook for Surgical Services in Australasia. Centre for Population and Urban Research. Melbourne (AUST) : Monash University; 2003. Table 10, p. 28.
- 2 Albin R. Sham surgery controls: intracerebral grafting of fetal tissue for Parkinson's disease and proposed criteria for use of sham surgery controls. J Med Ethics. 2002; 28: 322–5.
- 3 Freeman T, Vawter D, Leaverton P, et al. Use of placebo surgery in controlled trials of a cellular-based therapy for Parkinson's disease. N Engl J Med. 1999; 341: 988–91.
- 4 Lang A. Surgery for Parkinson's disease: a critical evaluation of the state of the art. Arch Neurol. 2000; 57: 1118–25.
- 5 Sackett D, Straus S, Richardson W, et al. How to Practice and Teach EBM. 2nd ed. Edinburgh (UK) : Churchill Livingstone; 2000.
- 6 The Cochrane Collaboration [homepage on the Internet]. Oxford (UK) : The Cochrane Collaboration; 2006 [cited 2006 October 11]. The Cochrane Collaboration Homepage. Available from: http://www.cochrane.org.
- 7 Altman DG, Schulz KF, Moher D, et al. The revised CONSORT statement for reporting randomized trials: explanation and elaboration. Ann Intern Med. 2001; 134: 663–94.
- 8 Wente MN, Seiler CM, Uhl W, Buchler MW. Perspectives of evidence-based surgery. Dig Surg. 2003; 20: 263–9.
- 9 Polgar S, Morris M, Reilly S, et al. Reconstructive neurosurgery for Parkinson's disease: a systematic review and preliminary meta-analysis. Brain Res Bull. 2003; 60: 1–24.
- 10
Cesaro P.
The design of clinical trials for cell transplantation into the central nervous system.
NeuroRx.
2005; 1(4): 492–9.
10.1602/neurorx.1.4.492 Google Scholar
- 11 Stirrat GM. Ethics and evidence based surgery. J Med Ethics. 2004; 30: 160–5.
- 12 Temple R, Ellenberg SS. Placebo controlled trials and active-controls in the evaluation of new treatments: part 1 ethical and scientific issues. Ann Intern Med. 2000; 133(6): 455–63.
- 13 Kupfer DJ, Frank E. Placebo in clinical trials for depression: complexity and necessity. J Am Med Assoc. 2002; 287(14): 1853–4.
- 14 Polgar S, Ng J. Ethics, methodology and the use of placebo controls for surgical trials. Brain Res Bull. 2005; 67: 290–7.
- 15 Macklin R. The ethical problems with sham surgery in clinical research. N Engl J Med.1999; 341: 992–6.
- 16 London A, Kadane J. Placebo that harm: Sham surgery controls in clinical trials. Stat Methods Med Res. 2002; 11: 413–27.
- 17 Horng S, Miller FG. Is placebo surgery ethical N Engl J Med. 2002; 347: 137–9.
- 18 Albin RL. Sham surgery controls are mitigated trolleys. J Med Ethics. 2005; 31: 149–52.
- 19 Miller FG. Sham surgery: an ethical analysis. Am J Bioeth. 2003; 3: 41–8.
- 20 Vawter D, Gervais KG, Freeman TB. Does placebo surgery-controlled research call for new provisions to protect human research participants Am J Bioeth. 2003; 3: 50–2.
- 21 Sackett DL, Wennberg JE. Choosing the best research design for each question. Br Med J. 1997; 315: 1636.
- 22 Hrobjartsson A, Gotzsche PC. Is the placebo powerless? An analysis of clinical trials comparing placebo with no treatment. N Engl J Med. 2001; 344: 1594–602.
- 23 Vawter D, Gervais K, Prehn A, et al. Placebo Controlled Surgical Trials; Perspectives of Parkinson's disease (PD). Res Exp Neurology. 2004; 187(1): 221–222.
- 24 Olanow CW. Double-blind, placebo-controlled trials for surgical interventions in Parkinson's disease. Arch Neurol. 2005; 62: 1343–4.
- 25 Scott Y, Kim H, Frank S, et al. Science and ethics of sham surgery: a survey of Parkinson's disease clinical research. Arch Neurol. 2005; 62: 1357–60.
- 26 Rascol O. Accessing the risk of a necessary harm: placebo surgery in Parkinson's disease. Neurology. 2005; 65: 982–3.
- 27 Freed C, Greene P, Breeze R, et al. Transplantation of embryonic dopamine neurons for severe Parkinson's disease. N Engl J Med. 2001; 344(10): 710–19.
- 28 Freeman T, Watts R, Hauser R, et al. A prospective, randomized, double-blind, surgical placebo-controlled trial of intrastriatal transplantation of fetal porcine ventral mesencephalic tissue (neurocell-PD) in subjects with Parkinson's disease. Exp Neurol. 2002; 175: 426.
- 29 Olanow C, Goetz C, Kordower J, et al. A double-blind controlled trial of bilateral nigral transplantation in Parkinson's disease. Ann Neurol. 2003; 54: 403–14.
- 30 Nutt JG, Burchiel KJ, Comella CL, et al. Randomized, double-blind trial of glial cell line-derived neurotrophic factor (gdnf) in PD. Neurology. 2003; 60: 69–73.
- 31 Defer G, Geny C, Ricolfi F, et al. Long-term outcome of unilaterally transplanted Parkinsonian patients. Brain. 1996; 119: 41–50.
- 32 Frank S, Kieburtz K, Holloway R, et al. What is the risk of sham surgery in Parkinson's disease clinical trials? A review of published reports. Neurology. 2005; 65: 1101–3.
- 33 Polgar S. Evidence based methodology for advancing neural reconstruction. In: C Davis-Sanberg, PR Sanberg, editors. Cell Therapy, Stem Cells, and Brain Repair. Totowa (NJ) : Humana Press; 2006. p. 325–39.
- 34 Dekkers W, Boer G. Sham surgery in patients with Parkinson's disease: is it morally acceptable J Med Ethics. 2001; 27: 151–6.
- 35 Boer G, Widner H. Clinical neurotransplantation: Core assessment protocol rather than sham surgery as control. Brain Res Bull. 2002; 58(6): 547–53.
- 36 Obeso J. Deep-brain stimulation of the subthalamic nucleus or the pars interna of the globus pallidus in Parkinson's disease. N Engl J Med. 2001; 345: 956–63.
- 37 Polgar S, Morris ME. Reconstructive Neurosurgery: Progress Towards a Best Practice Treatment for People with Parkinson's disease. In: MJ Willow, editors. Parkinson's Disease: New Research. New York (NY) : Nova Science; 2005. p. 41–68.
- 38 Freed WJ. Commentary: A Perspective on Transplantation Therapy and Stem Cells for Parkinson's disease. Cell Transplant. 2004; 13: 319–27.
- 39 Freeman TB, Vawter DE. From the Laboratory to the Clinic: Unique Issues in the Clinical Evaluation of Neural Reconstructive Therapies. Exp Neurol. 2004; 187: 283.
