Evidence map›Paper›PMID 30478096›Full record

ReviewCold Spring Harbor perspectives in medicine2019

Bioelectronic Medicine-Ethical Concerns.

Samuel Packer, Nicholas Mercado, Anita Haridat

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Cold Spring Harbor perspectives in medicine, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
5citing 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

5 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Review
  2. Electroceuticals: Unlocking the promise of therapies.Daru : journal of Faculty of Pharmacy, Tehran University of Medical Sciences · 2024
    Review
  3. Ultra-Thin Flexible Encapsulating Materials for Soft Bio-Integrated Electronics.Advanced science (Weinheim, Baden-Wurttemberg, Germany) · 2022
    Review
  4. Article
  5. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

3 authors.

Samuel PackerDepartment of Medicine, Division of Medical Ethics, Donald and Barbara Zucker School of Medicine at Hofstra University/Northwell Health, New York, New York 11040.
Nicholas MercadoDepartment of Medicine, Division of Medical Ethics, Donald and Barbara Zucker School of Medicine at Hofstra University/Northwell Health, New York, New York 11040.
Anita HaridatDepartment of Medicine, Division of Medical Ethics, Donald and Barbara Zucker School of Medicine at Hofstra University/Northwell Health, New York, New York 11040.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Bioelectronic medicine (BEM) offers exciting opportunities to treat diseases such as movement disorders and refractory inflammatory disease. The many variations of BEM allow for noninvasive aspects of treatment that might eliminate or reduce the need for pharmaceuticals; therefore, the term "electroceuticals" may be suitable. BEM has been effective for movement disorders and improvement of prosthetic devices. Based on this implication, there is an allowance to impact many focus areas that include but are not limited to autoimmune disease, sensory motor conditions, and neurological conditions. There are a wide array of ethical issues that relate to BEM, which include informed consent, research ethics, innovation, academic-industry relationships, intellectual property, and the conundrum that needs to be addressed when altering the brain such as the issues of autonomy and free beneficence and social justice. The major goal is to heighten awareness of ethical issues and facilitate a proactive ethical approach regarding BEM research.

Indexed as

Ethics, ResearchBeneficenceBiotechnologyElectric Stimulation TherapyElectronics, MedicalHumansOrganizational CultureSocial Justice

Identifiers

PMID30478096
PMCPMC6771365

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.