ArticleThe Journal of clinical ethics2013
Why we should continue to worry about the therapeutic misconception.
Article in The Journal of clinical ethics, 2013. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 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
5 citing papers in PubMed.
- Outcome-adaptive randomization in clinical trials: issues of participant welfare and autonomy.Theoretical medicine and bioethics · 2019Article
- Ethical challenges in conducting clinical research in lung cancer.Translational lung cancer research · 2016Article
- Automatic Placement of Genomic Research Results in Medical Records: Do Researchers Have a Duty? Should Participants Have a Choice?The Journal of law, medicine & ethics : a journal of the American Society of Law, Medicine & Ethics · 2015Article
- Problems with the consensus definition of the therapeutic misconception.The Journal of clinical ethics · 2013Article
- An exploratory study of therapeutic misconception among incarcerated clinical trial participants.AJOB empirical bioethicsArticle
Corrections and comments
- Commented on by
- Comment on
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
In a recent article in The Journal of Clinical Ethics, David Wendler argues that worries about the therapeutic misconception (TM) are not only misconceived, but detract from the larger agenda of a proper informed consent for subjects involved in clinical research.1 By contrast, we argue that Wendler mischaracterizes those who support TM research, and that his arguments are fragmentary, often illogical, and neglect a critical difference between clinical care and clinical research. A clear explanation about the chief aim of research is, in fact, what gives the other elements in a consent process their meaning. We argue that informed consent must be both trial-specific and context-sensitive, and that concern about the TM is needed now more than ever.
Indexed as
Identifiers
24597426What 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.