Evidence map›Paper›PMID 17601869›Full record

ReviewJournal of medical ethics2007

Ethics in studies on children and environmental health.

D F Merlo, L E Knudsen, K Matusiewicz, L Niebrój, K H Vähäkangas

Open access · bronzeAbstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Journal of medical ethics, 2007. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 12 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
12citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
5.9field-weighted citation impact, top 5% 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

12 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 35 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Advancing Global Health through Environmental and Public Health Tracking.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2020
    Review
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Clarifying assent in pediatric research.European journal of human genetics : EJHG · 2014
    Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Scientific integrity: critical issues in environmental health research.Environmental health : a global access science source · 2008
    Article
  11. Article
  12. Participation in environmental health research by placenta donation - a perception study.Environmental health : a global access science source · 2007
    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

5 authors at 3 institutions in 3 countries.

D F MerloEpidemiology and Biostatistics, Istituto Nazionale per la Ricerca sul Cancro, Largo Rosanna Benzi 10, 16132 Genova, Italy. franco.merlo@istge.it
L E Knudsen
K Matusiewicz
L Niebrój
K H Vähäkangas
Medical University of Silesia · PLFinland University · FIUniversity of Copenhagen · DK

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Children, because of age-related reasons, are a vulnerable population, and protecting their health is a social, scientific and emotional priority. The increased susceptibility of children and fetuses to environmental (including genotoxic) agents has been widely discussed by the scientific community. Children may experience different levels of chemical exposure than adults, and their sensitivity to chemical toxicities may be increased or decreased in comparison with adults. Such considerations also apply to unborn (fetal exposure) and newborn (neonatal exposure) children. Therefore, research on children is necessary in both clinical and environmental fields, to provide age-specific relevant data regarding the efficacy and safety of medical treatments, and regarding the assessment of risk from unintended environmental exposure. In this context, the stakeholders are many, including children and their parents, physicians and public health researchers, and the society as a whole, with its ethical, regulatory, administrative and political components. The important ethical issues are information of participants and consent to participate. Follow-up and protection of data (samples and information derived from samples) should be discussed in the context of biobanks, where children obtain individual rights when they become adults. It is important to realise that there are highly variable practices within European countries, which may have, in the past, led to differences in practical aspects of research in children. A number of recommendations are provided for research with children and environmental health. Environmental research with children should be scientifically justified, with sound research questions and valid study protocols of sufficient statistical power, ensuring the autonomy of the child and his/her family at the time of the study and later in life, if data and samples are used for follow-up studies. When children are enrolled, we recommend a consent dyad, including (1) parental (or legal guardian) informed consent and (2) the child's assent and/or informed consent from older minors. For evaluation of the studies including children, a paediatrician should always be involved in the research ethics committee.

Indexed as

AdolescentBiomedical ResearchChildChild DevelopmentChild WelfareEnvironmental HealthEthics Committees, ResearchHumansInformed ConsentPersonal AutonomyResearch SubjectsTissue BanksVulnerable Populations

Identifiers

PMID17601869
PMCPMC2598138
OpenAlexW2127387332

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.