Evidence map›Paper›PMID 15923485›Full record

ArticleJournal of medical ethics2005

Ethical concerns regarding guidelines for the conduct of clinical research on children.

S D Edwards, M J McNamee

Open access · bronzeAbstract readComparative Study
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of medical ethics, 2005. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 16 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
16citing papers in PubMed
3.7field-weighted citation impact, top 7% 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

16 citing papers in PubMed, 41 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Trial
  2. Trial
  3. Trial
  4. Trial
  5. Ethical key issues and fundamental rights in paediatric research.European journal of clinical pharmacology · 2011
    Trial
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Ethics of randomized trials in pediatric surgery.Pediatric surgery international · 2020
    Review
  9. Observational
  10. Parental Perceptions About Informed Consent/Assent in Pediatric Research in Jordan.Journal of empirical research on human research ethics : JERHRE · 2017
    Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Review
  14. British and Canadian views on the ethics of paediatric clinical trials.European journal of clinical pharmacology · 2007
    Article
  15. Review
  16. Prediction of total body water in infants and children.Archives of disease in childhood · 2005
    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 at 1 institution in 1 country.

S D EdwardsCentre for Philosophy, Humanities and Law in Healthcare, School of Health Science, University of Wales Swansea, Swansea SA2 8PP, UK. s.d.edwards@swansea.ac.uk
M J McNamee
University of Wales · GB

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

In this article we examine ethical aspects of the involvement of children in clinical research, specifically those who are incapable of giving informed consent to participate. The topic is, of course, not a new one in medical ethics but there are some tensions in current guidelines that, in our view, need to be made explicit and which need to be responded to by the relevant official bodies. In particular, we focus on tensions between the World Medical Association Declaration of Helsinki, and the guidance offered by the British Medical Association, the Royal College of Paediatrics and Child Health (formerly the British Paediatric Association), and the Council for International Organizations of Medical Sciences. We conclude with a call for these organisations to make their guidance explicit in relation to the World Medical Association Declaration.

Indexed as

ChildEthics, ResearchGuidelines as TopicHelsinki DeclarationHumansInformed ConsentPediatricsSocieties, MedicalUnited KingdomBiomedical and Behavioral Research

Identifiers

PMID15923485
PMCPMC1734163
OpenAlexW2101264882

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.