Evidence map›Paper›PMID 27996918›Full record

ArticleThe American journal of bioethics : AJOB2017

Tracking U.S. Professional Athletes: The Ethics of Biometric Technologies.

Katrina Karkazis, Jennifer R Fishman

Abstract read
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in The American journal of bioethics : AJOB, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 11 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
11citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
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

11 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Review
  3. Review
  4. Article
  5. Review
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Review
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

2 authors.

Katrina Karkazisa Stanford University.
Jennifer R Fishmanb McGill University.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Professional sport in the United States has widely adopted biometric technologies, dramatically expanding the monitoring of players' biodata. These technologies have the potential to prevent injuries, improve performance, and extend athletes' careers; they also risk compromising players' privacy and autonomy, the confidentiality of their data, and their careers. The use of these technologies in professional sport and the consumer sector remains largely unregulated and unexamined. We seek to provide guidance for their adoption by examining five areas of concern: (1) validity and interpretation of data; (2) increased surveillance and threats to privacy; (3) risks to confidentiality and concerns regarding data security; (4) conflicts of interest; and (5) coercion. Our analysis uses professional sport as a case study; however, these concerns extend to other domains where their use is expanding, including the consumer sector, collegiate and high school sport, the military, and commercial sectors where monitoring employees is viewed as useful for safety or to maximize labor potential.

Indexed as

AthletesPersonal AutonomyDoping in SportsHumansInformed ConsentSportsSports MedicineUnited Statesconfidentiality and privacyconflict of interestinformed consentprofessional–patient relationshiprisk/benefit analysis

Identifiers

PMID27996918

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.