ArticleInternational journal of law and psychiatry
Picturing neuroscience research through a human rights lens: imaging first-episode schizophrenic treatment-naive individuals.
Article in International journal of law and psychiatry. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 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
6 citing papers in PubMed.
- Ethical Imperatives for Working With Diverse Populations in Digital Research.Journal of medical Internet research · 2023Article
- Ethics reporting practices in randomized controlled trials of physical therapy interventions after stroke.Archives of physiotherapy · 2018Article
- Ethical reproducibility: towards transparent reporting in biomedical research.Nature methods · 2013Article
- Neuroethical issues in clinical neuroscience research.Handbook of clinical neurology · 2013Review
- Article
- Neuroimaging in mental health care: voices in translation.Frontiers in human 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
3 authors.
Funding
Abstract
In this paper we examine imaging research involving first-episode schizophrenic treatment-naive individuals (FESTNIs) through a legal human rights lens; in particular, the lens of the Additional Protocol to the Convention on Human Rights and Biomedicine Concerning Biomedical Research. We identify a number of ethical and legal hot spots highlighted by the Protocol, and offer a series of recommendations designed to ensure the human rights compatibility of this research. Subsequently, we argue that the lack of reporting on design elements related to ethical concerns frustrates commitments at the heart of the human rights approach, namely, transparency and openness to international scrutiny. To redress this problem, we introduce two norms for the first time: ethical transparency, and ethical reproducibility. When concluding, we offer a set of reporting guidelines designed to operationalize these norms in the context of imaging research involving FESTNIs. Though we will not make this case here, we believe that parallel reporting guidelines should be incorporated into other areas of research involving human subjects.
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.