ReviewDialogues in clinical neuroscience2016
Neurotechnological assessment of consciousness disorders: five ethical imperatives.
Review in Dialogues in clinical neuroscience, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 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
6 citing papers in PubMed.
- Ethical Governance Strategies for the Responsible Innovation of Neurotechnologies: A Scoping Review.Journal of bioethical inquiry · 2025Article
- Emergence from Disorders of Consciousness: Optimizing Self-Agency Through Communication.Physical medicine and rehabilitation clinics of North America · 2024Review
- High-Density Exploration of Activity States in a Multi-Area Brain Model.Neuroinformatics · 2024Article
- Transcranial Magnetic Stimulation in Disorders of Consciousness: An Update and Perspectives.Aging and disease · 2023Review
- The ethical relevance of the unconscious.Philosophy, ethics, and humanities in medicine : PEHM · 2017Review
- The Utility- and Use-of Neurotechnology to Recover Consciousness: Technical and Neuroethical Considerations in Approaching the "Hard Question" of Neuroscience.Frontiers in human neuroscience · 2017Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
1 author.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Disorders of consciousness (DOCs) cause great human suffering and material costs for society. Understanding of these disorders has advanced remarkably in recent years, but uncertainty remains with respect to the diagnostic criteria and standards of care. One of the most serious problems concerns misdiagnoses, their impact on medical decision-making, and on patients' well-being. Recent studies use neurotechnology to assess residual consciousness in DOC patients that traditional behavioral diagnostic criteria are unable to detect. The results show an urgent need to strengthen the development of new diagnostic tools and more refined diagnostic criteria. If residual consciousness may be inferred from robust and reproducible results from neurotechnological communication with DOC patients, this also raises ethical challenges. With reference to the moral notions of beneficence and fundamental rights, five ethical imperatives are here suggested in terms of diagnosis, communication, interpretation of subjective states, adaptation of living conditions, and care.
Indexed as
Identifiers
27489455PMC4969702What 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.