ArticleAccountability in research2012
Disciplining bioethics: towards a standard of methodological rigor in bioethics research.
Article in Accountability in research, 2012. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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
8 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Non-empirical methods for ethics research on digital technologies in medicine, health care and public health: a systematic journal review.Medicine, health care, and philosophy · 2024Pooled it
- Ethical Issues in Genetics and Infectious Diseases Research: An Interdisciplinary Expert Review.Ethics, medicine, and public health · 2021Article
- The Ethics of Precision Rationing: Human Genetics and the Need for Debate on Stratifying Access to Medication.Public health genomics · 2020Article
- 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
- New Issues for New Methods: Ethical and Editorial Challenges for an Experimental Philosophy.Science and engineering ethics · 2017Article
- Solicitude: balancing compassion and empowerment in a relational ethics of hope-an empirical-ethical study in palliative care.Medicine, health care, and philosophy · 2016Article
- The troubled identity of the bioethicist.Health care analysis : HCA : journal of health philosophy and policy · 2013Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Contemporary bioethics research is often described as multi- or interdisciplinary. Disciplines are characterized, in part, by their methods. Thus, when bioethics research draws on a variety of methods, it crosses disciplinary boundaries. Yet each discipline has its own standard of rigor--so when multiple disciplinary perspectives are considered, what constitutes rigor? This question has received inadequate attention, as there is considerable disagreement regarding the disciplinary status of bioethics. This disagreement has presented five challenges to bioethics research. Addressing them requires consideration of the main types of cross-disciplinary research, and consideration of proposals aiming to ensure rigor in bioethics research.
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.