Evidence map›Paper›PMID 30999959›Full record

ArticleBMC medical ethics2019

Correction to: Consent requirements for research with human tissue: Swiss ethics committee members disagree.

Flora Colledge, Sophie De Massougnes, Bernice Elger

Abstract readPublished Erratum
In one paragraph

Article in BMC medical ethics, 2019. 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

3 authors.

Flora ColledgeDepartment of Sport, Exercise and Health, Birsstrasse 320B, 4052, Basel, Switzerland. flora.colledge@unibas.ch.
Sophie De MassougnesHôpital ophtalmique Jules-Gonin, Avenue de France 15, Case postale 133, 1000, Lausanne, Switzerland.
Bernice ElgerInstitute for Biomedical Ethics, Bernoullistrasse 28, 4055, Basel, Switzerland.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

It has come to our attention that in the original article [1] information regarding dates was omitted. The data in this study were obtained in Switzerland four years before the entering into force of the new Swiss Human Research Act in 2014, when the guidelines of the Swiss Academy of Medical Sciences (SAMS) ceased to apply. It is important for readers to know that at the time of the study there was no binding law in Switzerland, only the more open SAMS guidelines that have a different legal status. We would expect to find less variation of opinions among research ethics committee members if the study were repeated after the federal law came into force.

Identifiers

PMID30999959
PMCPMC6474059

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.