ArticleFrontiers in pharmacology2018
The Shared Ethical Responsibility of Medically and Non-medically Qualified Experts in Human Drug Development Teams.
Article in Frontiers in pharmacology, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers.
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
6 citing papers in PubMed, 7 citations in OpenAlex.
- The Value and Importance of a Professional Ethical Code for Medicines Development: IFAPP International Ethics Framework.Pharmaceutical medicine · 2025Review
- Embracing Medicines Development as a Profession.Pharmaceutical medicine · 2025Review
- Challenges to Establishing Pharmaceutical Medicine as a Profession: Needs for Professional Identity and a Career Pathway: Role of Education and Training.Pharmaceutical medicine · 2025Review
- Advanced Hydrogel Systems for Local Anesthetic Delivery: Toward Prolonged and Targeted Pain Relief.Gels (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Review
- Declaration of Helsinki: ethical norm in pursuit of common global goals.Frontiers in medicine · 2024Article
- Utilization of genetic information for medicines development and equitable benefit sharing.Frontiers in genetics · 2023Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
14 authors at 12 institutions in 10 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The complexity of developing and applying increasingly sophisticated new medicinal products has led to the participation of many non-medically qualified scientists in multi-disciplinary non-clinical and clinical drug development teams world-wide. In this introductory paper to the "IFAPP International Ethics Framework for Pharmaceutical Physicians and Medicines Development Scientists" it is argued that all members of such multidisciplinary teams must share the scientific and ethical responsibilities since they all influence directly or indirectly both the outcome of the various phases of the medicines development projects and the safety of the research subjects involved. The participating medical practitioner retains the overriding responsibility and the final decision to stop a trial if the well-being of the research subjects is seriously endangered. All the team members should follow the main ethical principles governing human research, the respect for autonomy, justice, beneficence and non-maleficence. Nevertheless, the weighing of these principles might be different under various conditions according to the specialty of the members.
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.