ReviewDer Chirurg; Zeitschrift fur alle Gebiete der operativen Medizen2018
[Globalization in medical research].
Review in Der Chirurg; Zeitschrift fur alle Gebiete der operativen Medizen, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers, 1 of them a synthesis 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
4 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Application of artificial intelligence in palliative care: a bibliometric analysis of research hotspots and trends.Frontiers in medicine · 2025Pooled it
- The need to reorganize health research systems in pandemic crisis: A prospective study.Health science reports · 2023Article
- Patient Benefit of Clinical Research in Diversely Advanced African Developing Countries.Current therapeutic research, clinical and experimental · 2022Article
- Informed Consent in Clinical Studies Involving Human Participants: Ethical Insights of Medical Researchers in Germany and Poland.Frontiers in medicine · 2022Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The globalization of clinical research is gaining momentum. In particular, emerging countries, such as Brazil, India, Russia and South Africa show a significant increase in clinical trials. This trend is generating various ethical problems, which are examined in the present article. Sometimes, generally accepted ethical rules, such as the evaluation of clinical trials by ethics commissions are not respected and sometimes conflicts are generated which are difficult to resolve. For instance, it is controversial which standard of care researchers and sponsors have to provide in an international study. These conflicts are exacerbated by a fundamental dilemma: more research on diseases prevalent in developing and emerging countries is necessary. At the same time, the protection of study participants in those countries creates particular challenges. In recent years, international commissions and guidelines have achieved significant progress in solving these conflicts; however, the further development has to be analyzed very carefully. Incentives for better research on neglected diseases have to be created. Undesirable developments and abuse have to be prevented by appropriate international ethical standards.
Indexed as
Identifiers
29305633What 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.