Evidence map›Paper›PMID 30001699›Full record

ArticleBMC medical ethics2018

Setting standards for empirical bioethics research: a response to Carter and Cribb.

Michael Dunn, Jonathan Ives, Bert Molewijk, Jan Schildmann

Abstract readLetterComment
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in BMC medical ethics, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing 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

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

4 authors.

Michael DunnThe Ethox Centre, Nuffield Department of Population Health, Old Road Campus, University of Oxford, Headington, Oxford, OX3 7LF, UK. michael.dunn@ethox.ox.ac.uk.ORCID 0000-0002-5603-6200
Jonathan IvesCentre for Ethics in Medicine, University of Bristol, Bristol, UK.
Bert MolewijkDepartment of Medical Humanities, VU Amsterdam, Amsterdam, Netherlands.
Jan SchildmannInstitute for Medical Ethics and History of Medicine, Martin-Luther-University Halle-Wittenberg, Halle, Germany.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

This paper responds to the commentaries from Stacy Carter and Alan Cribb. We pick up on two main themes in our response. First, we reflect on how the process of setting standards for empirical bioethics research entails drawing boundaries around what research counts as empirical bioethics research, and we discuss whether the standards agreed in the consensus process draw these boundaries correctly. Second, we expand on the discussion in the original paper of the role and significance of the concept of 'integrating' empirical methods and ethical argument as a standard for research practice within empirical bioethics.

Indexed as

Empirical ResearchEthical TheoryBioethicsConsensusHumansMoralsConsensusDelphi methodEmpirical bioethicsEmpirical methodologyEthical analysis

Identifiers

PMID30001699
PMCPMC6044088

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.