ArticlePloS one2016
The Full Spectrum of Clinical Ethical Issues in Kidney Failure. Findings of a Systematic Qualitative Review.
Article in PloS one, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 papers, 3 of them syntheses that pooled 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.
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, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.
- A systematic qualitative review of ethical issues in open label placebo in published research.Scientific reports · 2025Pooled it
- The full spectrum of ethical issues in pediatric genome-wide sequencing: a systematic qualitative review.BMC pediatrics · 2021Pooled it
- Ethical issues in obesity prevention for school children: a systematic qualitative review.International journal of public health · 2017Pooled it
- Geographic Dialysis Facility Density and Early Dialysis Initiation.JAMA network open · 2024Article
- Ethical challenges in palliative sedation of adults: protocol for a systematic review of current clinical practice guidelines.BMJ open · 2022Article
- Ethical challenges in nephrology: a call for action.Nature reviews. Nephrology · 2020Review
- Developing the ethical framework of end-stage kidney disease care: from practice to policy.Kidney international supplements · 2020Review
- How to tackle the conundrum of quality appraisal in systematic reviews of normative literature/information? Analysing the problems of three possible strategies (translation of a German paper).BMC medical ethics · 2019Article
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.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundWhen treating patients with kidney failure, unavoidable ethical issues often arise. Current clinical practice guidelines some of them, but lack comprehensive information about the full range of relevant ethical issues in kidney failure. A systematic literature review of such ethical issues supports medical professionalism in nephrology, and offers a solid evidential base for efforts that aim to improve ethical conduct in health care.
aimTo identify the full spectrum of clinical ethical issues that can arise for patients with kidney failure in a systematic and transparent manner.
methodA systematic review in Medline (publications in English or German between 2000 and 2014) and Google Books (with no restrictions) was conducted. Ethical issues were identified by qualitative text analysis and normative analysis.
resultsThe literature review retrieved 106 references that together mentioned 27 ethical issues in clinical care of kidney failure. This set of ethical issues was structured into a matrix consisting of seven major categories and further first and second-order categories.
conclusionsThe systematically-derived matrix helps raise awareness and understanding of the complexity of ethical issues in kidney failure. It can be used to identify ethical issues that should be addressed in specific training programs for clinicians, clinical practice guidelines, or other types of policies dealing with kidney failure.
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.