Evidence map›Paper›PMID 21423344›Full record

ArticlePLoS medicine2011

Predicting harms and benefits in translational trials: ethics, evidence, and uncertainty.

Jonathan Kimmelman, Alex John London

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in PLoS medicine, 2011. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 37 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
37citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
–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

37 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Risk of surgical delivery to deep nuclei: a meta-analysis.Movement disorders : official journal of the Movement Disorder Society · 2011
    Pooled it
  3. Review
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Ethical challenges for a new generation of early-phase pediatric gene therapy trials.Genetics in medicine : official journal of the American College of Medical Genetics · 2021
    Review
  7. Review
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Marketing the Research Missions of Academic Medical Centers: Why Messages Blurring Lines Between Clinical Care and Research Are Bad for both Business and Ethics.Cambridge quarterly of healthcare ethics : CQ : the international journal of healthcare ethics committees · 2019
    Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Review
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

2 authors.

Jonathan KimmelmanBiomedical Ethics Unit, Department of Social Studies of Medicine, McGill University, Montreal, Quebec, Canada.
Alex John London

Funding

Canadian Institutes of Health Research EOG 102823
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

PubMed holds no abstract for this paper.

Indexed as

Drug Evaluation, PreclinicalEthics, ResearchEvidence-Based PracticeUncertaintyClinical Trials as TopicEligibility DeterminationForecastingHumansReproducibility of ResultsRisk Assessment

Identifiers

PMID21423344
PMCPMC3050916

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.