Evidence map›Paper›PMID 24597427›Full record

ArticleThe Journal of clinical ethics2013

Problems with the consensus definition of the therapeutic misconception.

David S Wendler

Abstract readComment
In one paragraph

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 4 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
4citing 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

4 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Molecular Basis for Non-Covalent, Non-Competitive FAAH Inhibition.International journal of molecular sciences · 2022
    Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

1 author.

David S WendlerDepartment of Bioethics, NIH Clinical Center, Bethesda, Maryland, USA. dwendler@nih.gov

Funding

Intramural NIH HHS Z99 CL999999
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

In a previous article,' I attempted to assess the likely impact of the most prominent versions of the therapeutic misconception (TM) on research subjects' informed consent. I concluded that the TM is not nearly as significant a concern as is commonly thought, and that focusing on it is more likely to undermine than promote research subjects' informed consent. A recent commentary rejects these conclusions, as least as they pertain to the "consensus" definition of the TM.2 The authors of the commentary argue that work on the TM remains central to ensuring the appropriateness of research subjects' consent and, by implication, the ethical acceptability of clinical research. The present work evaluates the arguments offered in support of these claims. This analysis reveals that the authors offer few substantive responses to my arguments, and the responses they do offer fail to undermine my prior conclusions. Furthermore, consideration of an additional issue-the emergence of learning healthcare systems-suggests that the TM is likely to be even less significant in the future, hence, focusing on it may be even more problematic than I argued previously.

Indexed as

Research SubjectsClinical Trials as TopicHuman ExperimentationHumansInformed ConsentTherapeutic Misconception

Identifiers

PMID24597427
PMCPMC4155983

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceTDM
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.