Evidence map›Paper›PMID 31281272›Full record

ArticleFrontiers in psychiatry2019

Reflecting on the Reasons Pros and Cons Coercive Measures for Patients in Psychiatric and Somatic Care: The Role of Clinical Ethics Consultation. A Pilot Study.

Elena Montaguti, Jan Schürmann, Charlotte Wetterauer, Mario Picozzi, Stella Reiter-Theil

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Frontiers in psychiatry, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 10 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
10citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–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

10 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Intersectionality as a tool for clinical ethics consultation in mental healthcare.Philosophy, ethics, and humanities in medicine : PEHM · 2024
    Article
  6. Article
  7. Review
  8. Review
  9. Article
  10. 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

5 authors.

Elena MontagutiBiotechnology and Life Sciences Department, University of Insubria, Varese, Italy.
Jan SchürmannDepartment of Clinical Ethics, University Hospital Basel (USB), Basel, Switzerland.
Charlotte WetterauerDepartment of Clinical Ethics, University Psychiatric Hospital (UPK), Basel, Switzerland.
Mario PicozziBiotechnology and Life Sciences Department, University of Insubria, Varese, Italy.
Stella Reiter-TheilDepartment of Clinical Ethics, University Hospital Basel (USB) and University Psychiatric Hospital (UPK), University of Basel, Basel, Switzerland.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

PubMed holds no abstract for this paper.

Indexed as

case seriescoercionethics consultationguidelineslawpsychiatrysomatic care

Identifiers

PMID31281272
PMCPMC6595495

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.