Evidence map›Paper›PMID 28831512›Full record

ReviewDer Nervenarzt2018

[Advance directive of probands in pharmaceutical research : A medical ethics discussion].

M Haupt, F Jessen, H Fangerau

Abstract readReview
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Review in Der Nervenarzt, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing papers in PubMed
1.5field-weighted citation impact, top 16% 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

1 citing paper in PubMed, 8 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. 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

3 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.

M HauptNeuro-Centrum Düsseldorf, Lehrpraxis der Klinik und Poliklinik für Psychiatrie und Psychotherapie, Heinrich-Heine-Universität Düsseldorf, Hohenzollernstr. 1-5, 40211, Düsseldorf, Deutschland. m.haupt@alzheimer-praxis-duesseldorf.de.
F JessenKlinik und Poliklinik für Psychiatrie und Psychotherapie, Uniklinik Köln, Medizinische Fakultät, Köln, Deutschland.
H FangerauInstitut für Geschichte, Theorie und Ethik der Medizin, Heinrich-Heine-Universität Düsseldorf, Düsseldorf, Deutschland.
Heinrich Heine University Düsseldorf · DEKlinik und Poliklinik für Psychiatrie und Psychotherapie · DEUniversity Hospital Bonn · DE

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

In the fourth Act on the amendment of pharmaceutical legal and other regulations in November 2016, the legislature has designated the proband advance directive based on the instrument of patient advance directive to enable group beneficial research with persons not capable of giving consent. This article describes the existing conditional need for group beneficial research and presents the problem of the decisive instrument for advance directives at the center of the considerations. The features of the proband advance directive concluded by the legislature stand in opposition to a successful implementation, particularly due to the necessary concrete clarification content far in advance for informed research participants. This article describes solution possiblities, which refer to the realization of the instrument of a proxy research authorization as well as the consideration of an advance research planning based on the advance care planning.

Indexed as

Ethics, MedicalAdvance DirectivesGermanyHumansMental CompetencyPharmaceutical ResearchProxyAdvance care planningAdvance directiveGroup beneficial researchPersons incapable of consentResearch authorization

Identifiers

PMID28831512
OpenAlexW2766535187

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.