ArticleScience and engineering ethics2017
Relevant Information and Informed Consent in Research: In Defense of the Subjective Standard of Disclosure.
Article in Science and engineering ethics, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 papers.
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.
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.
Who cites it
8 citing papers in PubMed, 29 citations in OpenAlex.
- Self-censorship: should scientific journals decline to publish self-experimentation?Journal of medical ethics · 2026Article
- Green bioethics, patient autonomy and informed consent in healthcare.Journal of medical ethics · 2024Article
- Uninformed Origins: Should We Be Advising Parents on the Source of Medicines and Therapies?Health care analysis : HCA : journal of health philosophy and policy · 2023Article
- Continuous quality improvement: reducing informed consent form signing errors.BMC medical ethics · 2023Article
- What information and the extent of information to be provided in an informed assent/consent form of pediatric drug trials.BMC medical ethics · 2022Article
- Applying a Digital Health Checklist and Readability Tools to Improve Informed Consent for Digital Health Research.Frontiers in digital health · 2021Article
- Informational needs for participation in bioequivalence studies: the perspectives of experienced volunteers.European journal of clinical pharmacology · 2019Article
- What information and the extent of information research participants need in informed consent forms: a multi-country survey.BMC medical ethics · 2018Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors at 1 institution in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
In this article, we seek to contribute to the debate on the requirement of disclosure in the context of informed consent for research. We defend the subjective standard of disclosure and describe ways to implement this standard in research practice. We claim that the researcher should make an effort to find out what kinds of information are likely to be relevant for those consenting to research. This invites researchers to take empirical survey information seriously, attempt to understand the cultural context, talk to patients to be better able to understand what can be potentially different concerns and interests prevalent in the target population. The subjective standard of disclosure should be seen as a moral ideal that perhaps can never be perfectly implemented but still can and should be used as a normative ideal guiding research practice. In the light of these discussions, we call for more empirical research on what considerations are likely to be perceived as relevant by potential research participants recruited from different socio-economic and cultural groups.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.