Evidence map›Paper›PMID 15082802›Full record

ReviewJournal of medical ethics2004

Research ethics and evidence based medicine.

R K Lie

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Journal of medical ethics, 2004. 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. More on the Science of Health Care.Texas Heart Institute journal · 2017
    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

1 author.

R K LieDepartment of Clinical Bioethics, National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, MD 20852, USA. reidar.lie@fil.uib.no

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

In this paper, the author argues that the requirement to conduct randomised clinical trials to inform policy in cases where one wants to identify a cheaper alternative to known effective but expensive interventions raises an important ethical issue. This situation will eventually arise whenever there are resource constraints, and a policy decision has been made not to fund an intervention on cost effectiveness grounds. It has been thought that this is an issue only in extremely resource poor settings. This paper gives an example from the United Kingdom illustrating that this is also a problem faced by richer countries.

Indexed as

Ethics, ResearchControl GroupsCost-Benefit AnalysisDelivery of Health CareEvidence-Based MedicineHealth Care RationingHumansInterferon-gammaMultiple SclerosisProfessional Review OrganizationsQuality of LifeRandomized Controlled Trials as TopicResearch DesignState MedicineUnited KingdomInterferon-gammaBiomedical and Behavioral ResearchHealth Care and Public Health

Identifiers

PMID15082802
PMCPMC1733827

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.