ArticleScience and engineering ethics2010
Responsible research: what is expected? Commentary on: "Statistical power, the Belmont Report, and the ethics of clinical trials".
Article in Science and engineering ethics, 2010. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.
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.
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.
Who cites it
3 citing papers in PubMed, 13 citations in OpenAlex.
- Laying the groundwork: Building relationships for public and patient involvement in pre-clinical paediatric research.Health expectations : an international journal of public participation in health care and health policy · 2020Article
- Health Workers' Perspectives on the Outcomes, Enablers, and Barriers to the Implementation of HIV "Test and Treat" Guidelines in Abuja, Nigeria.Journal of AIDS and HIV treatment · 2019Article
- Editors' overview: topics in the responsible management of research data.Science and engineering ethics · 2010Article
Corrections and comments
- Comment on
Authors and funding
1 author at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
"Responsible research" and "good science" are concepts with various meanings depending on one's perspective and assumptions. Fellow researchers, research participants, policy makers and the general public also have differing expectations of the benefits of research ranging from accurate and reliable data that extend the body of knowledge, to solutions to societal concerns. Unless these differing constituencies articulate their differing views they may fail to communicate and undermine the value of research to society.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.