Evidence map›Paper›PMID 25968651›Full record

ArticleDer Nervenarzt2015

[Research on humans suffering from dementia].

H Helmchen

Abstract readEnglish Abstract
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Der Nervenarzt, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing papers in PubMed
0.7field-weighted citation impact, top 25% of its field
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

1 citing paper in PubMed, 7 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Review
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

1 author at 1 institution in 1 country.

H HelmchenKlinik für Psychiatrie und Psychotherapie, Charité - Universitätsmedizin Berlin, Campus Benjamin Franklin, Hindenburgdamm 30, 12200, Berlin, Deutschland, hanfried.helmchen@charite.de.
Charité - Universitätsmedizin Berlin · DE

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The urgent necessity for dementia research is justified by the prevalence and increase in dementia associated with the demographic changes, for which no causal treatment is available; however, during the progressive course dementia destroys the capacity for self-determination of persons affected and thereby an essential prerequisite for participation in research, i.e. a valid consent to a research intervention. Accordingly, not only sufficient information about all issues which are relevant for decision making by potential participants but also a flawless assessment of the capacity to consent are important; however, currently this is not satisfactorily possible. This article attempts to answer questions associated with these problems, such as how consent can be established, including that of a surrogate for consent of potential research participants by whom consent is no longer possible. In a second section the benefit-risk evaluation, which is also underdeveloped, will be dealt with using two concrete research examples, a diagnostic and a therapeutic research intervention for patients with dementia.

Indexed as

Informed ConsentPatient SelectionClinical Trials as TopicDementiaHealth Services ResearchHumansMental CompetencyPatient ParticipationPatients

Identifiers

PMID25968651
OpenAlexW245332432

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.