ReviewWorld journal of critical care medicine2016
Ethical publishing in intensive care medicine: A narrative review.
Review in World journal of critical care medicine, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 papers, 2 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
7 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.
- Artificial intelligence in the retraction spotlight: trends, causes and consequences of withdrawn AI literature through a systematic bibliometric review.Frontiers in research metrics and analytics · 2025Pooled it
- Investigate the relationship between the retraction reasons and the quality of methodology in non-Cochrane retracted systematic reviews: a systematic review.Systematic reviews · 2024Pooled it
- Moderator Effect of Hypoalbuminemia in Volume Resuscitation and Plasma Expansion with Intravenous Albumin Solution.International journal of molecular sciences · 2022Review
- Renal Safety of Hydroxyethyl starch 130/0.42 After Cardiac Surgery: A Retrospective Cohort Analysis.Drug safety · 2021Article
- The Boldt scandal still in need of action: the example of colloids 10 years after initial suspicion of fraud.Intensive care medicine · 2018Article
- Gating the holes in the Swiss cheese (part I): Expanding professor Reason's model for patient safety.Journal of evaluation in clinical practice · 2018Article
- How Can the Implementation of Ethical Norms Be Guaranteed in Biomedical Studies?Journal of reproduction & infertilityArticle
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
Ethical standards in the context of scientific publications are increasingly gaining attention. A narrative review of the literature concerning publication ethics was conducted as found in PubMed, Google Scholar, relevant news articles, position papers, websites and other sources. The Committee on Publication Ethics has produced guidelines and schedules for the handling of problem situations that have been adopted by professional journals and publishers worldwide as guidelines to authors. The defined requirements go beyond the disclosure of conflicts of interest or the prior registration of clinical trials. Recommendations to authors, editors and publishers of journals and research institutions were formulated with regard to issues of authorship, double publications, plagiarism, and conflicts of interest, with special attention being paid to unethical research behavior and data falsification. This narrative review focusses on ethical publishing in intensive care medicine. As scientific misconduct with data falsification damage patients and society, especially if fraudulent studies are considered important or favor certain therapies and downplay their side effects, it is important to ensure that only studies are published that have been carried out with highest integrity according to predefined criteria. For that also the peer review process has to be conducted in accordance with the highest possible scientific standards and making use of available modern information technology. The review provides the current state of recommendations that are considered to be most relevant particularly in the field of intensive care medicine.
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.