Evidence map›Paper›PMID 15812676›Full record

ReviewDer Nervenarzt2005

[Ethical implications of placebo-controlled clinical trials for psychotropic drugs].

H Helmchen

Erratum issuedAbstract readEnglish AbstractReview
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Review in Der Nervenarzt, 2005. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. An erratum has been issued. Cited by 1 paper.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing papers in PubMed
0.4field-weighted citation impact, top 22% of its field
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

1 citing paper in PubMed, 9 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Ethical issues in naturalistic versus controlled trials.Dialogues in clinical neuroscience · 2011
    Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

  • Erratum issued
5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

1 author at 1 institution in 1 country.

H HelmchenKlinik für Psychiatrie und Psychotherapie, Charité -- Universitätsmedizin Berlin, Freie Universität Berlin.
Charité - Universitätsmedizin Berlin · DE

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The "note of clarification" of the World Medical Association to Article 29 of the Fifth Revision of the Declaration of Helsinki (Edinburgh 2000) intensified the controversial discussion of how methodologically compelling and ethically acceptable pure placebo controls are in clinical trials of new drugs if an effective standard therapy ("active control") is available. Pros and cons from this discussion are exposed and examined with regard to "minor" psychic disorders, depressions, and schizophrenia. Criteria are developed to facilitate the evaluation of each trial application. These criteria also seem to be necessary because normative authorities, which are responsible for licensing drugs such as FDA and EMEA, and legally relevant regulations such as the additional protocol for biomedical research of the European Council do not agree with regard to placebo controls. It is concluded that pure placebo-controlled clinical trials of new psychotropic drugs may be acceptable in minor psychic disorders, but in general -- at least in a pure form -- not in major disorders such as schizophrenia and major depression.

Indexed as

Drug ApprovalHelsinki DeclarationPlacebosControlled Clinical Trials as TopicEthics Committees, ResearchHumansInternationalityMental DisordersPlacebo EffectPsychotropic DrugsPlacebosPsychotropic Drugs

Identifiers

PMID15812676
OpenAlexW3153607592

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.