ArticleEuropean archives of psychiatry and clinical neuroscience2012
Ethics of clinical research with mentally ill persons.
Article in European archives of psychiatry and clinical neuroscience, 2012. 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.
- Ethics Guideline Development for Neuroscience Research involving Patients with Mental Illness in Japan.Asian bioethics review · 2023Article
- Bioethical reflexivity and requirements of valid consent: conceptual tools.BMC medical ethics · 2019Article
- Biomarkers and neurobiology of schizophrenia.European archives of psychiatry and clinical neuroscience · 2012Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
1 author.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
This article describes ethical, legal and professional components of the two core requirements of clinical research: informed consent and risk-benefit relationships. It deals particularly with the ethically relevant reasons, criteria, procedures and validity of (1) the informed consent process, (2) the relationship between benefits and risks, and as a requirement of its assessment: (3) standards and (quasi quantitative) criteria of benefits and risks and/or burdens of a research intervention. These requirements will be discussed with specific reference to research interventions in mentally ill patients, and particularly in those who are incompetent to consent. (4) The analysis concludes by demanding a strong adherence to the ethical rules of clinical research in order to protect participants and preserve the trust of both the patients and the public and (5) yields in a set of recommendations.
Indexed as
Identifiers
22212724What 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.