I inferred from the essay by Miller and Joffe that the authors themselves drew conclusions about the conduct of clinical research using the term equipoise--as in "equipoise-driven consequences," without adequately defining the term.
Whose responsibility is it to define the concept of equipoise, if not academicians and NIH bioethicists?
Alex John London (Two Dogmas of Research Ethics and the Integrative Approach to Human-Subjects Research) proposes an integrative model for clinical research that “respects the fundamental moral equality of all community members...." More here:
The number of treatment units (subjects or groups of subjects) assigned to control and treatment groups, affects an RCT's reliability. If the effect of the treatment is small, the number of treatment units in either group may be insufficient for rejecting the null hypothesis in the respective statistical test . The failure to reject the null hypothesis would imply that the treatment shows no statistically significant effect on the treated in a given test . But as the sample size increases, the same RCT may be able to demonstrate a significant effect of the treatment, even if this effect is small.