ArticleAnnals of the New York Academy of Sciences2012
Challenges to deep brain stimulation: a pragmatic response to ethical, fiscal, and regulatory concerns.
Article in Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences, 2012. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- Proceedings of the Fourth Annual Deep Brain Stimulation Think Tank: A Review of Emerging Issues and Technologies.Frontiers in integrative neuroscience · 2016Article
- Article
- Integrating precision medicine in the study and clinical treatment of a severely mentally ill person.PeerJ · 2013Article
- Neuroethicists' Perspectives on Ethical Issues in Neurotechnology Industry-Academia Partnerships.AJOB neuroscienceArticle
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 response to the early success of deep brain stimulation, we offer some common-sense strategies to sustain the work, addressing the need to do so in a fiscally workable, ethically transparent, and scientifically informed manner. After delineating major threats, we will suggest reforms in both the legislative and regulatory spheres that might remediate these challenges. We will recommend (1) revisions to the Bayh-Dole Act of 1980, which governs intellectual property exchange resulting from federally funded research; (2) revisions to the Association of American Medical Colleges recommendations concerning the management of conflicts of interest when scientists with an intellectual property interest participate in clinical research in tandem; (3) revisions to the Food and Drug Administration's pre-market approval process for new devices, including a proposal for a mini-investigational device exemption; and (4) the establishment of a public-private partnership to build ethical and sustainable synergies between the scientific community, industry, and government that would foster discovery and innovation.
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.