Evidence map›Paper›PMID 12710563›Full record

Trial reportMedicine, health care, and philosophy2003

Bioethical theory and practice in genetic screening for type 1 diabetes.

U Gustafsson Stolt, J Ludvigsson, P E Liss, T Svensson

Abstract readClinical TrialMulticenter StudyRandomized Controlled Trial
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Trial report in Medicine, health care, and philosophy, 2003. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
6citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–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

6 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Observational
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Review
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

4 authors.

U Gustafsson StoltDepartment of Molecular and Clinical Medicine, Division of Paediatrics, Faculty of Health Sciences, Linköping University, SE-581 85 Linköping, Sweden. ulrgu@imk.liu.se
J Ludvigsson
P E Liss
T Svensson

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Due to the potential ethical and psychological implications of screening, and especially in regard of screening on children without available and acceptable therapeutic measures, there is a common view that such procedures are not advisable. As part of an independent research- and bioethical case study, our aim was therefore to explore and describe bioethical issues among a representative sample of participant families (n = 17,055 children) in the ABIS (All Babies In South-east Sweden) research screening for Type 1 diabetes (IDDM). The primary aim is the identification of risk factors important for the development of diabetes and other multifactorial immune-mediated diseases. Four hundred, randomly chosen, participant mothers were asked to complete a questionnaire exploring issues of information, informed consent, bio-material, confidentiality and autonomy, and of prevention/intervention. 293 completed the questionnaire, resulting in a response rate of 73.3%. The majority of questions had the form of 6-point Likert-type response scales (1-6). We found that the majority of respondents felt calm in in regard of samples and written material, and also concerning the possibility of their child in the future being identified as having high risk of developing Type 1 diabetes. An important finding concerning access and control of mainly biological data was indicated, with the respondents expressing concern for potential future use. We believe our findings indicate that this kind of empirical studies can substantially contribute to our understanding of bioethical issues of medical research involving genetics. Issues, such as safeguards ensuring the ethical criteria of autonomy and respect, were emphasised by our respondents. We believe the issues brought up may promote further discussion, and do suggest issues for consideration by, among others, researchers, bioethicists and Institutional Review Boards.

Indexed as

Attitude to HealthBioethicsAdultChildChild, PreschoolDiabetes Mellitus, Type 1Ethics, ResearchFemaleGenetic TestingHumansMothersPatient ParticipationSurveys and QuestionnairesSwedenEmpirical ApproachGenetics and Reproduction

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.