Evidence map›Paper›PMID 24507449›Full record

ArticleBMC medical ethics2014

The fiduciary obligation of the physician-researcher in phase IV trials.

Rosemarie D L C Bernabe, Ghislaine J M W van Thiel, Jan A M Raaijmakers, Johannes J M van Delden

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in BMC medical ethics, 2014. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from 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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

2 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

4 authors.

Rosemarie D L C BernabeJulius Center for Health Sciences and Primary Care, Utrecht University Medical Center, Heidelberglaan 100, Utrecht 3584 CX, The Netherlands. R.Bernabe@umcutrecht.nl.
Ghislaine J M W van Thiel
Jan A M Raaijmakers
Johannes J M van Delden

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundIn this manuscript, we argue that within the context of phase IV, physician-researchers retain their fiduciary obligation to treat the patient-participants. DISCUSSION: We first clarify why the perspective that research ethics ought to be differentiated from clinical ethics is not applicable in phase IV, and therefore, why therapeutic orientation is most convivial in this phase. Next, assuming that ethics guidelines may be representative of common morality, we show that ethics guidelines see physician-researchers primarily as physicians and only secondarily as researchers. We then elaborate on what a fiduciary obligation is and how some of the obligations are default duties. Lastly, we look at the fiduciary obligation of the physician-researcher in phase IV interventional trials.

conclusionThe fiduciary obligation to treat is not as easily waived as in earlier trials. Assuming the entwinement of research and practice in phase IV, physician-researchers, in collaboration with other researchers, investigators, and research ethics committees, should ensure that in terms of study design, methodology, and research practice, the therapeutic value of the research to the patient-participants is not diminished.

Indexed as

Informed ConsentMoral ObligationsPhysiciansClinical Trials, Phase IV as TopicEthics, ResearchFemaleHumansMaleResearch DesignResearcher-Subject RelationsResearch PersonnelResearch Subjects

Identifiers

PMID24507449
PMCPMC3922332

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.