ArticleBMC medical ethics2012
Empirical research in medical ethics: how conceptual accounts on normative-empirical collaboration may improve research practice.
Article in BMC medical ethics, 2012. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 25 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
25 citing papers in PubMed.
- Does brain-computer interface-based mind reading threaten mental privacy? ethical reflections from interviews with Chinese experts.BMC medical ethics · 2025Article
- Ethical issues with psychedelic-assisted treatments in psychiatry: A systematic scoping review.Psychological medicine · 2025Article
- Health research protocols: a template for empirical bioethics and other investigations.Health research policy and systems · 2025Article
- Concept of Normativity in Multi-Omics Analysis of Axon Regeneration.Biomolecules · 2024Article
- Clinical researchers' insights on key data for eligibility screening in clinical studies.Journal of clinical and translational science · 2024Article
- The risk of normative bias in reporting empirical research: lessons learned from prenatal screening studies about the prominence of acknowledged limitations.Theoretical medicine and bioethics · 2023Article
- Women's viewpoints on egg freezing in Austria: an online Q-methodology study.BMC medical ethics · 2021Article
- Electronic consenting for conducting research remotely: A review of current practice and key recommendations for using e-consenting.International journal of medical informatics · 2020Review
- Impact of legislation and public funding on oncofertility: a survey of Canadian, French and Moroccan pediatric hematologists/oncologists.BMC medical ethics · 2020Article
- Illness and disease: an empirical-ethical viewpoint.BMC medical ethics · 2019Article
- Developing an ethics support tool for dealing with dilemmas around client autonomy based on moral case deliberations.BMC medical ethics · 2018Article
- The values and ethical commitments of doctors engaging in macroallocation: a qualitative and evaluative analysis.BMC medical ethics · 2018Article
- Standards of practice in empirical bioethics research: towards a consensus.BMC medical ethics · 2018Article
- The Acceptability of Online Consent in a Self-Test Serosurvey of Responders to the 2014-2016 West African Ebola Outbreak.Public health ethics · 2018Article
- An update on the "empirical turn" in bioethics: analysis of empirical research in nine bioethics journals.BMC medical ethics · 2018Review
- The use of empirical research in bioethics: a survey of researchers in twelve European countries.BMC medical ethics · 2017Article
- On classifying the field of medical ethics.BMC medical ethics · 2017Article
- Research participants' perceptions and views on consent for biobank research: a review of empirical data and ethical analysis.BMC medical ethics · 2015Review
- The normative background of empirical-ethical research: first steps towards a transparent and reasoned approach in the selection of an ethical theory.BMC medical ethics · 2015Article
- Secondary use of empirical research data in medical ethics papers on gamete donation: forms of use and pitfalls.Monash bioethics review · 2015Review
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
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThe methodology of medical ethics during the last few decades has shifted from a predominant use of normative-philosophical analyses to an increasing involvement of empirical methods. The articles which have been published in the course of this so-called 'empirical turn' can be divided into conceptual accounts of empirical-normative collaboration and studies which use socio-empirical methods to investigate ethically relevant issues in concrete social contexts. DISCUSSION: A considered reference to normative research questions can be expected from good quality empirical research in medical ethics. However, a significant proportion of empirical studies currently published in medical ethics lacks such linkage between the empirical research and the normative analysis. In the first part of this paper, we will outline two typical shortcomings of empirical studies in medical ethics with regard to a link between normative questions and empirical data: (1) The complete lack of normative analysis, and (2) cryptonormativity and a missing account with regard to the relationship between 'is' and 'ought' statements. Subsequently, two selected concepts of empirical-normative collaboration will be presented and how these concepts may contribute to improve the linkage between normative and empirical aspects of empirical research in medical ethics will be demonstrated. Based on our analysis, as well as our own practical experience with empirical research in medical ethics, we conclude with a sketch of concrete suggestions for the conduct of empirical research in medical ethics. SUMMARY: High quality empirical research in medical ethics is in need of a considered reference to normative analysis. In this paper, we demonstrate how conceptual approaches of empirical-normative collaboration can enhance empirical research in medical ethics with regard to the link between empirical research and normative analysis.
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.