Evidence map›Paper›PMID 28540608›Full record

ReviewJournal of medical toxicology : official journal of the American College of Medical Toxicology2017

Ethics and Medical Toxicology Research.

Jeremy Sugarman, Andrew Stolbach

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Journal of medical toxicology : official journal of the American College of Medical Toxicology, 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. Evidence-Based Toxicology-Hypothesis Testing in Randomized Clinical Trials: Part I-Superiority.Journal of medical toxicology : official journal of the American College of Medical Toxicology · 2026
    Article
  2. Maintaining the Public Trust in Journals with Ethical Publishing.Journal of medical toxicology : official journal of the American College of Medical Toxicology · 2017
    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.

Jeremy SugarmanBerman Institute of Bioethics, Johns Hopkins University, 1809 Ashland Ave, Baltimore, MD, 21205, USA. jsugarman@jhu.edu.
Andrew StolbachDepartment of Emergency Medicine, School of Medicine, Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, MD, USA.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Optimizing care in medical toxicology necessitates designing and conducting ethical research. Nevertheless, the context of medical toxicology can make clinical research ethically challenging for a variety of reasons: medical toxicology is typified by relative rare conditions; making precise and rapid diagnoses is often fraught with uncertainty; emergent and urgent clinical exigencies make consent difficult or impossible; and some exposures are stigmatized or related to illegal activities that can compromise collecting accurate data from patients. In this paper, we examine some of the ethical issues in medical toxicology research that are especially salient in effort to promote optimal research in the field. The particular issues to be addressed are as follows: (1) rare conditions and orphan agents, (2) randomization and control arms, (3) inclusion and exclusion criteria, (4) outcome measures, (5) consent, (6) confidentiality, (7) registries, (8) oversight, and (9) transparency and reporting. Thinking about these ethical issues prospectively will help researchers and clinicians appropriately navigate them.

Indexed as

Biomedical ResearchConfidentialityEligibility DeterminationEndpoint DeterminationEthics Committees, ResearchHumansInformed ConsentOrphan Drug ProductionPatient SelectionRandomized Controlled Trials as TopicRare DiseasesRegistriesToxicologyConsentEthicsMedical toxicologyResearch ethics

Identifiers

PMID28540608
PMCPMC5570727

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.