ArticleDer Nervenarzt2018
[Willingness to participate in group beneficial dementia research].
Article in Der Nervenarzt, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
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
backgroundWith the fourth Act on the amendment of pharmaceutical legal and other regulations it became law in Germany from the beginning of 2017 that under certain conditions, pharmaceutical research will be allowed with persons incapable of giving consent, even if this research may only be beneficial to other sufferers of the same disease, i. e. group beneficial research.
objectiveWe conducted a semistructured, non-representative survey among psychiatric patients and their relatives. PARTICIPANTS AND
methodsThis survey was done for a period of 3 months until the end of September 2017 in the practice of M. H. with successively examined patients and their relatives. Patients incapable of giving consent related to dementia, depression and emergency cases, were excluded. Participants were asked about their attitudes related to evaluation of a) group beneficial research in principle, b) pharmaceutical withdrawal studies and c) research authorization. Sociodemographic and clinical variables were collected. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION: This study included 85 persons and all of them gave their informed consent to participation. The mean age was 70 years, 47% were male, 61% had a university degree and 46% an independent profession. Mild cognitive impairment was diagnosed in 26%. This survey revealed a relatively high basic approval of group beneficial dementia research as well as of pharmaceutical withdrawal studies. In addition, research authorization gained a substantially positive evaluation. Only a few participants were informed about the new law in force since 2017. The present results were drawn from an explorative study with an unrepresentative sample and, therefore, have to be interpreted with caution. They show, however, that in the general population more information and awareness about group beneficial research with persons incapable of giving informed consent should be achieved. The relatively high rate of approval in this study may reveal a widespread feeling of social responsibility; however, reported objections of the participants should also be seriously considered.
Indexed as
Identifiers
29663021What 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.