ArticleBMC medical ethics2018
Standards of practice in empirical bioethics research: towards a consensus.
Article in BMC medical ethics, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 59 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
59 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Bioethics at the intersection of politics, society, and healthcare: the significance of media debate analyses.BMC medical ethics · 2025Pooled it
- Empirical Bioethics-Historical, Philosophical, and Methodological Perspectives.Journal of bioethical inquiry · 2026Article
- Digital bioethics: exploring an emerging field.Medicine, health care, and philosophy · 2026Article
- Guiding the Ethics of Locator Devices in Dementia Care: Tutorial on Developing a Question-Based Ethical Framework.Journal of medical Internet research · 2026Article
- Bioethics-in-Science : An Invitation.Journal of bioethical inquiry · 2026Article
- Recommendations on post-trial responsibility in implantable neural device research: a multidisciplinary consensus study.BMC medical ethics · 2026Article
- Financial influences and the primacy of patient welfare - an empirical and ethical analysis in German cancer medicine.BMC medical ethics · 2026Article
- Social aspects of privacy in technologically assisted dementia care.Medicine, health care, and philosophy · 2026Article
- Tool for assessing food industry commitments and practices to address the double burden of malnutrition: a Delphi study.Globalization and health · 2025Article
- Integrating ethics in digital mental healthcare technologies: a principle-based empirically grounded roadmap approach.Medicine, health care, and philosophy · 2025Article
- An international Delphi consensus for reporting of setting in psychedelic clinical trials.Nature medicine · 2025Article
- Finding Consensus on Trust in AI in Health Care: Recommendations From a Panel of International Experts.Journal of medical Internet research · 2025Article
- Gerontechnologies, ethics, and care phases: Secondary analysis of qualitative interviews.Nursing ethics · 2025Article
- Ethical Issues in Uncontrolled Donation After Circulatory Determination of Death: A Scoping Review to Reveal Areas of Broad Consensus, and Those for Future Research.Transplant international : official journal of the European Society for Organ Transplantation · 2025Article
- Running in the FAMILY: understanding and predicting the intergenerational transmission of mental illness.European child & adolescent psychiatry · 2024Article
- Patient vulnerability in stereotactic arrhythmia radioablation (STAR): a preliminary ethical appraisal from the STOPSTORM.eu consortium.Strahlentherapie und Onkologie : Organ der Deutschen Rontgengesellschaft ... [et al] · 2024Article
- Article
- The Vagueness of Integrating the Empirical and the Normative: Researchers' Views on Doing Empirical Bioethics.Journal of bioethical inquiry · 2024Article
- An empirical ethics study of the coherence of NICE technology appraisal policy and its implications for moral justification.BMC medical ethics · 2024Article
- Why Do I Choose an Animal Model or an Alternative Method in Basic and Preclinical Biomedical Research? A Spectrum of Ethically Relevant Reasons and Their Evaluation.Animals : an open access journal from MDPI · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
- Commented on by
- Commented on by
- Commented on by
Authors and funding
16 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundThis paper reports the process and outcome of a consensus finding project, which began with a meeting at the Brocher Foundation in May 2015. The project sought to generate and reach consensus on standards of practice for Empirical Bioethics research. The project involved 16 academics from 5 different European Countries, with a range of disciplinary backgrounds.
methodsThe consensus process used a modified Delphi approach.
resultsConsensus was reached on 15 standards of practice, organised into 6 domains of research practice (Aims, Questions, Integration, Conduct of Empirical Work, Conduct of Normative Work; Training & Expertise).
conclusionsThrough articulating these standards we outline a position that encourages responses, and through those responses we will be able to identify points of agreement and contestation that will drive the conversation forward. In that vein, we would encourage researchers, funders and journals to engage with what we have proposed, and respond to us, so that our community of practice of empirical bioethics research can develop and evolve further.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What 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.