Evidence map›Paper›PMID 27638832›Full record

ArticleMedicine, health care, and philosophy2017

Trust me, I'm a researcher!: The role of trust in biomedical research.

Angeliki Kerasidou

Open access · hybridAbstract read
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Medicine, health care, and philosophy, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 51 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
51citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
6.4field-weighted citation impact, top 3% 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

51 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 109 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Trial
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Review
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. "Do they REALLY trust us"?: Lessons from a volunteer research registry.Journal of clinical and translational science · 2024
    Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. What's trust got to do with research: why not accountability?Frontiers in research metrics and analytics · 2023
    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

1 author at 1 institution in 1 country.

Angeliki KerasidouThe Ethox Centre, Nuffield Department of Population Health, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK. angeliki.kerasidou@ethox.ox.ac.uk.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-9344-3297
University of Oxford · GB

Funding

Wellcome Trust
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

In biomedical research lack of trust is seen as a great threat that can severely jeopardise the whole biomedical research enterprise. Practices, such as informed consent, and also the administrative and regulatory oversight of research in the form of research ethics committees and Institutional Review Boards, are established to ensure the protection of future research subjects and, at the same time, restore public trust in biomedical research. Empirical research also testifies to the role of trust as one of the decisive factors in research participation and lack of trust as a barrier for consenting to research. However, what is often missing is a clear definition of trust. This paper seeks to address this gap. It starts with a conceptual analysis of the term trust. It compares trust with two other related terms, those of reliance and trustworthiness, and offers a defence of Baier's attribute of 'good will' a basic characteristic of trust. It, then, proceeds to consider trust in the context of biomedical research by examining two questions: First, is trust necessary in biomedical research?; and second, do increases in regulatory oversight of biomedical research also increase trust in the field? This paper argues that regulatory oversight is important for increasing reliance in biomedical research, but it does not improve trust, which remains important for biomedical research. It finishes by pointing at professional integrity as a way of promoting trust and trustworthiness in this field.

Indexed as

Biomedical ResearchTrustEthics Committees, ResearchHumansInformed ConsentResearcher-Subject RelationsResearch PersonnelBiomedical researchProfessional integrityRelianceResearch ethicsTrustTrustworthiness

Identifiers

PMID27638832
PMCPMC5318478
OpenAlexW2520626198

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.