Evidence map›Paper›PMID 24923433›Full record

ArticleBMC medical ethics2014

Child's assent in research: age threshold or personalisation?

Marcin Waligora, Vilius Dranseika, Jan Piasecki

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 25 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
25citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–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

25 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Review
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. 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

3 authors.

Marcin WaligoraDepartment of Philosophy and Bioethics, Faculty of Health Sciences, Jagiellonian University, Medical College, Michalowskiego 12, Krakow 31-126, Poland. m.waligora@uj.edu.pl.
Vilius Dranseika
Jan Piasecki

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundAssent is an important ethical and legal requirement of paediatric research. Unfortunately, there are significant differences between the guidelines on the details of assent. DISCUSSION: What often remains unclear is the scope of the assent, the procedure for acquiring it, and the way in which children's capacity to assent is determined. There is a general growing tendency that suggests that the process of assent should be personalised, that is, tailored to a particular child. This article supports the idea of personalisation. However, we also propose placing limits on personalisation by introducing a suggested requirement of assent starting at a school-age threshold. In some situations RECs/IRBs and researchers could reduce the suggested threshold. SUMMARY: A recommended age threshold is likely to serve the interests of children better than ambiguous and flexible criteria for personalised age determination.

Indexed as

Informed Consent By MinorsMental CompetencyPediatricsResearch SubjectsAdolescentAge FactorsChildComprehensionDecision MakingEthics Committees, ResearchFemaleGuideline AdherenceGuidelines as TopicHumansMalePersonal Autonomy

Identifiers

PMID24923433
PMCPMC4073511

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.