Brain–computer interface (BCI) is a promising technology for restoring communication in individuals with locked-in syndrome (LIS). BCI technology offers a potential tool for individuals with impaired or absent means of effective communication to use brain activity to control an output device such as a computer keyboard. Exploratory studies of BCI devices for communication in people with LIS are underway. Research with individuals with LIS presents not only technological challenges, but ethical challenges as well. Whereas recent attention has been focused on ethical issues that arise at the initiation of studies, such as how to obtain valid consent, relatively little attention has been given to issues at the conclusion of studies. BCI research in LIS highlights one such challenge: How to decide when an exploratory BCI research study should end. In this article, we present the case of an individual with presumed LIS enrolled in an exploratory BCI study. We consider whether two common ethical frameworks for stopping randomized clinical trials—equipoise and nonexploitation—can be usefully applied to elucidating researcher obligations to end exploratory BCI research. We argue that neither framework is a good fit for exploratory BCI research. Instead, we apply recent work on clinician-researcher fiduciary obligations and in turn offer some preliminary recommendations for BCI researchers on how to end exploratory BCI studies.

Objective: We studied the influence of the methodologic quality of individual trials on the outcome of a landmark meta-analysis on thrombolytic therapy in acute myocardial infarction. From each study we extracted the number of patients in both groups who died in hospital or during follow-up. Methodologic quality was assessed using the Delphi list. We first recalculated pooled odds ratios (ORs) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs), on the studies found and compared them with the original results of Yusuf et al. Next we incorporated the results of quality assessment in five different ways in the calculation of the pooled ORs: a) component analysis; b) visual plot; c) quality score as a threshold score; d) quality score as a weighting factor; and e) cumulative pooling.

Results and Conclusion: No correlation between quality scores and ORs was found. Studies with a proper description of the different quality components provided an estimate close to the true treatment effect. No major differences were found between the results of the five different methods of incorporating the quality scores into the final conclusion.