Evidence map›Paper›PMID 10977160›Full record

ArticleHealth care analysis : HCA : journal of health philosophy and policy2000

Some popular versions of uninformed consent.

J L Hutton, R E Ashcroft

Abstract read
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Health care analysis : HCA : journal of health philosophy and policy, 2000. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
3citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

3 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

2 authors.

J L HuttonDepartment of Statistics, University of Newcastle, Newcastle upon Tyne, UK. J.L.Hutton@newcastle.ac.uk
R E Ashcroft

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

A patient's informed consent is required by the Nuremberg code, and its successors, before she can be entered into a clinical trial. However, concern has been expressed by both patients and professionals about the beneficial or detrimental effect on the patient of asking for her consent. We examine advantages and drawbacks of popular variations on consent, which might reduce the stress on patients at the point of illness. Both informed and uninformed responses to particular trials, and trials in general, are discussed. The selection by doctors of patients, to whom entry to trials will be offered, is explored. Alternative forms of consent require restrictions on patients' knowledge, personal responsibility and freedom of choice.

Indexed as

Informed ConsentPatient SelectionTherapeutic Human ExperimentationClinical Trials as TopicFreedomHumansRandomized Controlled Trials as TopicStress, PsychologicalBiomedical and Behavioral Research

Identifiers

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.