ArticlePloS one2019
Clinical ethics consultation among Italian ethics committee: A mixed method study.
Article in PloS one, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 13 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
13 citing papers in PubMed, 35 citations in OpenAlex.
- Ethical considerations of prospective data collection for stereotactic arrhythmia radioablation (STAR): an overview from the STOPSTORM.eu consortium.Strahlentherapie und Onkologie : Organ der Deutschen Rontgengesellschaft ... [et al] · 2026Article
- Mapping ethical issues encompassing end-of-life care for persons experiencing severe and persistent mental illness: a qualitative study.BMC medical ethics · 2025Article
- The New Organization of Ethics Committees in Italy: What is the Future of Clinical Ethics?Journal of bioethical inquiry · 2025Article
- Article
- The Physician-Assisted Suicide Pathway in Italy: Ethical Assessment and Safeguard Approaches.Journal of bioethical inquiry · 2024Article
- Be an ethicist not a stranger! : The critical patient stuck between the right to evidence-based medicine, informed consent, and social duty. Are we still "Strangers at the bedside"?Journal of anesthesia, analgesia and critical care · 2023Article
- Article
- Research, education, ethics consultation: evaluating a Bioethics Unit in an Oncological Research Hospital.BMC medical ethics · 2022Observational
- Italian law n. 219/2017 on consent and advance directives: survey among Ethics Committees on their involvement and possible role.BMC medical ethics · 2022Article
- Trends of Phase I Clinical Trials in the Latest Ten Years across Five European Countries.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2022Article
- Ethical issues in oncology practice: a qualitative study of stakeholders' experiences and expectations.BMC medical ethics · 2022Article
- Ethics committees for clinical experimentation at international level with a focus on Italy.Acta bio-medica : Atenei Parmensis · 2020Review
- Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveThe general purpose for ethics consultations is to deliberate on issues on medical and scientific research and act towards the safeguard of the patient's rights and dignity. With the implementation of European Union (EU) Regulation 536/2014 on clinical trials and cost and time-optimization, the nature of consultations and the bodies they are carried out might be to some extent affected. Accordingly, we sought to gain an updated perspective on the current role and current practices of ethics consultations nationwide in both clinical and research settings.
methodsThe study was carried forth by a three-step mixed-method approach: i) review of policies/regulations for ethics committee (EC) nationwide; ii) a structured survey on ethics consultation activity completed by each EC during 2016; iii) incorporated into the third part, a qualitative assessment with a selected sample of 8 key-informants for a semi-structured interview, discussing EC history, the ethics consultation function, and the professional experience of consultants.
resultsReview of the policies/regulations promoted by ECs showed that 72,6% (n = 69) of all the ECs (N = 95) being actually capable of providing ethics consultation service by policy. 71 ECs (74.7%) responded to the survey on ethics consultation requests; among them, 48 (67.6%) provided ethics consultations of which 23 (23/48) actually received requests for this service in the year 2016. Many ECs did not have a structured database in place to provide precise figures of requests received in the last year nor of their contents.
conclusionTo date, ethics consultation in clinical and research practice is largely underappreciated and not well understood by users. The consultants themselves lack a comprehensive vision of work carried out in their field, and bioethics training programs to keep them updated. Despite clinical ethics consultation services should not necessarily be mandatory, following the recent EU Regulation on clinical trials, institutional ethics consultation bodies should be re-evaluated.
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.