Evidence map›Paper›PMID 25566011›Full record

ArticleFrontiers in human neuroscience2014

Brain stimulation for treatment and enhancement in children: an ethical analysis.

Hannah Maslen, Brian D Earp, Roi Cohen Kadosh, Julian Savulescu

Abstract read
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Frontiers in human neuroscience, 2014. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 21 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
21citing 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

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

  1. Pooled it
  2. Review
  3. Review
  4. Article
  5. Review
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Review
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Review
  15. Review
  16. Transcranial direct current stimulation in children and adolescents: a comprehensive review.Journal of neural transmission (Vienna, Austria : 1996) · 2016
    Review
  17. Review
  18. Article
  19. Review
  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

4 authors.

Hannah MaslenOxford Uehiro Centre for Practical Ethics and Oxford Martin School, University of Oxford Oxford, UK.
Brian D EarpOxford Uehiro Centre for Practical Ethics and Oxford Martin School, University of Oxford Oxford, UK.
Roi Cohen KadoshOxford Uehiro Centre for Practical Ethics and Oxford Martin School, University of Oxford Oxford, UK.
Julian SavulescuOxford Uehiro Centre for Practical Ethics and Oxford Martin School, University of Oxford Oxford, UK.

Funding

Wellcome Trust 086041
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Davis (2014) called for "extreme caution" in the use of non-invasive brain stimulation (NIBS) to treat neurological disorders in children, due to gaps in scientific knowledge. We are sympathetic to his position. However, we must also address the ethical implications of applying this technology to minors. Compensatory trade-offs associated with NIBS present a challenge to its use in children, insofar as these trade-offs have the effect of limiting the child's future options. The distinction between treatment and enhancement has some normative force here. As the intervention moves away from being a treatment toward being an enhancement-and thus toward a more uncertain weighing of the benefits, risks, and costs-considerations of the child's best interests (as judged by the parents) diminish, and the need to protect the child's (future) autonomy looms larger. NIBS for enhancement involving trade-offs should therefore be delayed, if possible, until the child reaches a state of maturity and can make an informed, personal decision. NIBS for treatment, by contrast, is permissible insofar as it can be shown to be at least as safe and effective as currently approved treatments, which are themselves justified on a best interests standard.

Indexed as

autonomybrain stimulationcogntive enhancementfunctional trade-offspediatric ethics

Identifiers

PMID25566011
PMCPMC4270184

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.