Evidence map›Paper›PMID 17316465›Full record

ArticleCritical care (London, England)2007

Doing research on the ethics of doing research.

Robert D Truog

Abstract readComment
In one paragraph

Article in Critical care (London, England), 2007. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing 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

2 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Barriers and challenges in the process of including critically ill patients in clinical studies.Scandinavian journal of trauma, resuscitation and emergency medicine · 2020
    Observational
  2. Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

1 author.

Robert D TruogHarvard Medical School, Department of Social Medicine, Division of Medical Ethics, Boston, MA 02115, USA. Robert.Truog@childrens.harvard.edu

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

In the previous issue of Critical Care Chenaud and colleagues found that most intensive care unit patients who had given informed consent for their participation in a clinical trial could not recall either the purpose of the trial or its related risks several days later. These findings should remind us that informed consent is a process, not an event, but they should not be interpreted to mean that recall is, of itself, a useful criterion for evaluating either the validity or the quality of the informed consent process. On an entirely separate note, the decision of the authors not to obtain informed consent for this study itself raises interesting questions about the ethics of doing research on the ethics of doing research.

Indexed as

Informed ConsentBiomedical ResearchClinical Trials as TopicHumansIntensive Care UnitsMental RecallPatient Participation

Identifiers

PMID17316465
PMCPMC2151858

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.