Evidence map›Paper›PMID 31621797›Full record

ArticleJAMA neurology2019

Ethical Challenges of Risk, Informed Consent, and Posttrial Responsibilities in Human Research With Neural Devices: A Review.

Saskia Hendriks, Christine Grady, Khara M Ramos, Winston Chiong, Joseph J Fins, Paul Ford, Sara Goering, Henry T Greely, Katrina Hutchison, Michael L Kelly and 9 more

Open access · greenAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in JAMA neurology, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 59 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
59citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
5.0field-weighted citation impact, top 4% of its field
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

59 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 89 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Trial
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Ethical Considerations in Transcranial Focused Ultrasound Neuromodulation for Disorders of Consciousness.Neuromodulation : journal of the International Neuromodulation Society · 2026
    Article
  10. Review
  11. Brain-computer interface commercialization.Journal of neuroengineering and rehabilitation · 2026
    Article
  12. Review
  13. Review
  14. Review
  15. Article
  16. Review
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Review
  20. 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

19 authors at 15 institutions in 3 countries.

Saskia HendriksClinical Center, Department of Bioethics, National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, Maryland.
Christine GradyClinical Center, Department of Bioethics, National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, Maryland.
Khara M RamosNational Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke, National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, Maryland.
Winston ChiongDepartment of Neurology, University of California, San Francisco.
Joseph J FinsDivision of Medical Ethics, Weill Cornell Medical College, New York, New York.
Paul FordCenter for Bioethics, Cleveland Clinic, Cleveland, Ohio.
Sara GoeringDepartment of Philosophy, University of Washington, Seattle.
Henry T GreelyStanford Law School, Stanford University, Stanford, California.
Katrina HutchisonDepartment of Philosophy, Macquarie University, Sydney, New South Wales, Australia.
Michael L KellyMetroHeath Medical Center, School of Medicine, Department of Neurosurgery, Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, Ohio.
Scott Y H KimClinical Center, Department of Bioethics, National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, Maryland.
Eran KleinDepartment of Philosophy, University of Washington, Seattle.
Sarah H LisanbyDivision of Translational Research, National Institute of Mental Health, Bethesda, Maryland.
Helen MaybergCenter of Advanced Circuit Therapeutics, Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York, New York.
Hannah MaslenThe Oxford Uehiro Centre for Practical Ethics, University of Oxford, Oxford, United Kingdom.
Franklin G MillerDivision of Medical Ethics, Weill Cornell Medical College, New York, New York.
Karen RommelfangerDepartment of Neurology, Emory University, Atlanta, Georgia.
Sameer A ShethCognitive Science and Neuromodulation Program, Department of Neurological Surgery, Columbia University College of Physicians and Surgeons, New York, New York.
Anna WexlerDepartment of Medical Ethics and Health Policy, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia.
Cornell University · USNational Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke · USNational Institutes of Health Clinical Center · USUniversity of Washington · USAustralian Research Council · AUCleveland Clinic · USColumbia University · USEmory University · USIcahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai · USMetroHealth Medical Center · USNational Institute of Mental Health · USStanford University · USUniversity of California, San Francisco · USUniversity of Oxford · GBUniversity of Pennsylvania · US

Funding

Intramural NIH HHS Z99 CL999999
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Importance: Developing more and better diagnostic and therapeutic tools for central nervous system disorders is an ethical imperative. Human research with neural devices is important to this effort and a critical focus of the National Institutes of Health Brain Research Through Advancing Innovative Neurotechnologies (BRAIN) Initiative. Despite regulations and standard practices for conducting ethical research, researchers and others seek more guidance on how to ethically conduct neural device studies. This article draws on, reviews, specifies, and interprets existing ethical frameworks, literature, and subject matter expertise to address 3 specific ethical challenges in neural devices research: analysis of risk, informed consent, and posttrial responsibilities to research participants. Observations: Research with humans proceeds after careful assessment of the risks and benefits. In assessing whether risks are justified by potential benefits in both invasive and noninvasive neural device research, the following categories of potential risks should be considered: those related to surgery, hardware, stimulation, research itself, privacy and security, and financial burdens. All 3 of the standard pillars of informed consent-disclosure, capacity, and voluntariness-raise challenges in neural device research. Among these challenges are the need to plan for appropriate disclosure of information about atypical and emerging risks of neural devices, a structured evaluation of capacity when that is in doubt, and preventing patients from feeling unduly pressured to participate. Researchers and funders should anticipate participants' posttrial needs linked to study participation and take reasonable steps to facilitate continued access to neural devices that benefit participants. Possible mechanisms for doing so are explored here. Depending on the study, researchers and funders may have further posttrial responsibilities. Conclusions and Relevance: This ethical analysis and points to consider may assist researchers, institutional review boards, funders, and others engaged in human neural device research.

Identifiers

PMID31621797
PMCPMC9395156
OpenAlexW2981166425

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceTDM
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.