ArticleHospital pharmacy2018
RxLegal: A Rapid Review of Right-To-Try.
Article in Hospital pharmacy, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed, 4 citations in OpenAlex.
- The Ethics of the "Right-to-Try" Movement in an Era of Regulatory Flux.Therapeutic innovation & regulatory science · 2025Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
1 author at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Right-to-try legislation is intended to allow patients with life-threatening illnesses access to investigational medical treatments without formal Food and Drug Administration (FDA) involvement. Currently, right-to-try laws have been enacted in 40 states. Despite the increased passage of right-to-try legislation at the state level, individuals have detailed arguments both for and against these laws. Proponents state that right-to-try removes regulatory burdens and improves timely access to potentially lifesaving medications for terminally ill patients, reduces inequalities regarding access, and improves patient-provider communication and decision making. Opponents argue that right-to-try does not really guarantee access, reinforces preexisting health care inequalities, prioritizes rapid access over safety and the interests of the individual over the public, and produces concerns regarding informed consent. Despite these issues, right-to-try has recently gained traction on the federal level with both Congressional chambers passing separate bills.
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.