Evidence map›Paper›PMID 32335863›Full record

ArticleMonash bioethics review2020

DBS: a compelling example for ethical and legal reflection-a French perspective on ethical and legal concerns about DBS.

Sonia Desmoulin-Canselier

Abstract read
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Monash bioethics review, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact, top 95% 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

1 citing paper in PubMed, 1 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Review
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

1 author at 1 institution in 1 country.

Sonia Desmoulin-CanselierNormaStim Program ANR14-CE30-0016, University of Nantes (UMR 6297 DCS), Nantes, France. Sonia.Desmoulin-Canselier@univ-nantes.fr.
Maison des Sciences sociales et des Humanités - Lyon St-Étienne · FR

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Deep brain stimulation (DBS) is an approved treatment for neurological diseases and a promising one for psychiatric conditions, which may produce spectacular results very quickly. It is also a powerful tool for brain research and exploration. Beyond an overview of the ethical and legal literature on this topic, this paper aims at showing that DBS is a compelling example for ethical-legal reflection, as it combines a highly technical surgical procedure, a complex active medical device and neuromodulation of the human brain to restore lost abilities caused by a chronic and evolving disease. Some of the ethical and legal issues raised by DBS are not specific, but shed new light on medical ethics and law. Others are more DBS-specific, as they are linked to the intricacies of research and treatment, to the need to tune the device, to the patients' control over the device and its effects and to the involvement of family caregivers.

Indexed as

Ethics, MedicalLegislation, MedicalBrainDeep Brain StimulationFranceHumansMental DisordersNervous System DiseasesAutonomyControlDeep brain stimulationEthicsFamily caregiversIdentityInformationLiabilityMedical lawResearchTreatment

Identifiers

PMID32335863
OpenAlexW3019931920

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.