ArticleAccountability in research2012
Reflexive research ethics in fetal tissue xenotransplantation 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 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, 13 citations in OpenAlex.
- Advances and Perspectives in Dental Pulp Stem Cell Based Neuroregeneration Therapies.International journal of molecular sciences · 2021Review
- Holistic Approach of Swiss Fetal Progenitor Cell Banking: Optimizing Safe and Sustainable Substrates for Regenerative Medicine and Biotechnology.Frontiers in bioengineering and biotechnology · 2020Article
- Enhancement of LIN28B-induced hematopoietic reprogramming by IGF2BP3.Genes & development · 2019Article
- Social Science-Environmental Health Collaborations: An Exciting New Direction.New solutions : a journal of environmental and occupational health policy : NS · 2016Article
- Xenotransplantation of human fetal adipose tissue: a model of in vivo adipose tissue expansion and adipogenesis.Journal of lipid research · 2014Article
- Xenotransplantation models to study the effects of toxicants on human fetal tissues.Birth defects research. Part B, Developmental and reproductive toxicology · 2014Review
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 at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
For biomedical research in which the only involvement of the human subject is the provision of tissue or organ samples, a blanket consent, i.e., consent to use the tissue for anything researchers wish to do, is considered by many to be adequate for legal and Institutional Review Board (IRB) requirements. Alternatively, a detailed informed consent provides patients or study participants with more thorough information about the research topic. We document here the beliefs and opinions of the research staff on informed consent and the discussion-based reflexive research ethics process that we employed in our fetal tissue xenotransplantion research on the impact of environmental exposures on fetal development. Reflexive research ethics entails the continued adjustment of research practice according to relational and reflexive understandings of what might be beneficent or harmful. Such reflexivity is not solely an individual endeavor, but rather a collective relationship between all actors in the research process.
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.