Evidence map›Paper›PMID 28353189›Full record

ReviewCurrent neurology and neuroscience reports2017

Reflections on Ethics and Humanity in Pediatric Neurology: the Value of Recognizing Ethical Issues in Common Clinical Practice.

Gabriel M Ronen, Peter L Rosenbaum

Abstract readReview
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Review in Current neurology and neuroscience reports, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing 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

2 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. 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

2 authors.

Gabriel M RonenDepartment of Pediatrics, McMaster University, 1200 Main Street West, Hamilton, ON, L8S 4K1, Canada. roneng@mcmaster.ca.
Peter L RosenbaumDepartment of Pediatrics, McMaster University, 1200 Main Street West, Hamilton, ON, L8S 4K1, Canada.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Our goals in this reflection are to (i) identify the ethical dimensions inherent in any clinical encounter and (ii) bring to the forefront of our pediatric neurology practice the myriad of opportunities to explore and learn from these ethical questions. We highlight specifically Beauchamp and Childress's principles of biomedical ethics. We use the terms ethics in common clinical practice and an ethical lens to remind people of the ubiquity of ethical situations and the usefulness of using existing ethical principles to analyze and resolve difficult situations in clinical practice. We start with a few common situations with which many of us tend to struggle. We describe what we understand as ethics and how and why developments in technology, novel potential interventions, policies, and societal perspectives challenge us to think about and debate ethical issues. Individual patients are not a singular population; each patient has their own unique life situations, culture, goals, and expectations that need to be considered with a good dose of humanity and humility. We believe that using an ethical lens-by which we mean making an explicit effort to identify and consider these issues openly-will help us to achieve this goal in practice, education, and research.

Indexed as

Bioethical IssuesEthics, MedicalChildHumansNeurologyPediatricsChildrenClinical ethicsEducationMoralityNeurodisabilityResearch

Identifiers

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.