Evidence map›Paper›PMID 26646672›Full record

ArticleHealth care analysis : HCA : journal of health philosophy and policy2016

Implantable Smart Technologies (IST): Defining the 'Sting' in Data and Device.

Gill Haddow, Shawn H E Harmon, Leah Gilman

Open access · hybridAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Health care analysis : HCA : journal of health philosophy and policy, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
8citing papers in PubMed
0.7field-weighted citation impact, top 30% 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

8 citing papers in PubMed, 17 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Review
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Special Issue of Health Care Analysis: Translational Bodies-Ethical Aspects of Uses of Human Biomaterials.Health care analysis : HCA : journal of health philosophy and policy · 2016
    Article
  8. 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 at 1 institution in 1 country.

Gill HaddowScience, Technology and Innovation Studies, The University of Edinburgh, Edinburgh, UK. gill.haddow@ed.ac.uk.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-7205-6933
Shawn H E HarmonEdinburgh Law School, The University of Edinburgh, Edinburgh, UK.
Leah GilmanScience, Technology and Innovation Studies, The University of Edinburgh, Edinburgh, UK.
University of Edinburgh · GB

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

In a world surrounded by smart objects from sensors to automated medical devices, the ubiquity of 'smart' seems matched only by its lack of clarity. In this article, we use our discussions with expert stakeholders working in areas of implantable medical devices such as cochlear implants, implantable cardiac defibrillators, deep brain stimulators and in vivo biosensors to interrogate the difference facets of smart in 'implantable smart technologies', considering also whether regulation needs to respond to the autonomy that such artefacts carry within them. We discover that when smart technology is deconstructed it is a slippery and multi-layered concept. A device's ability to sense and transmit data and automate medicine can be associated with the 'sting' of autonomy being disassociated from human control as well as affecting individual, group, and social environments.

Indexed as

Biomedical TechnologyBiotechnologyCochlear ImplantsDeep Brain StimulationDefibrillators, ImplantableEquipment and SuppliesHumansAutonomyBiotechnologiesHealthMedical devicesRegulationSmartVulnerability

Identifiers

PMID26646672
PMCPMC4987398
OpenAlexW2196385802

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.