Evidence map›Paper›PMID 20570755›Full record

ArticleContemporary clinical trials2010

The ethics of sham surgery on research subjects with cognitive impairments that affect decision-making capacity.

David B Resnik, Frank Miller

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Contemporary clinical trials, 2010. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing 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

1 citing paper in PubMed.

  1. 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.

David B ResnikNational Institute of Environmental Health Sciences, National Institutes of Health, Research Triangle Park, NC 27709, USA. resnikd@niehs.nih.gov
Frank Miller

Funding

Ethical, social, and legal issues in environmental health researchZIAES102646 · NIEHS · NATIONAL INSTITUTE OF ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH SCIENCES · PI RESNIK, DAVID · 2009 to 2025
$1.8M
Intramural NIH HHS ZIA ES102646
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Populations recruited to participate in sham surgery clinical trials sometimes include patients with cognitive impairments that affect decision-making capacity. In this commentary we examine arguments for and against including these patients in sham surgery clinical trials. We argue that patients with cognitive impairments that affect decision-making capacity should not be excluded from a sham surgery clinical trial if there are scientific reasons for including them in the study and basic ethical requirements for clinical research are met.

Indexed as

Ethics, ResearchGeneral SurgeryPlacebosResearch SubjectsAdvance DirectivesClinical Trials as TopicCognition DisordersDecision MakingHumansInformed ConsentPlacebos

Identifiers

PMID20570755
PMCPMC2930142

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceTDM
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.