Ethically Problematic Medical Device Representation.

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

3 citing papers in PubMed.

1. How physician relationships with neurotechnology companies impact clinical practice: interviews with physicians.Frontiers in neuroscience · 2026
   Article
2. Choice and Trade-offs: Parent Decision Making for Neurotechnologies for Pediatric Drug-Resistant Epilepsy.Journal of child neurology · 2021
   Article
3. Novel Neurotechnological Interventions for Pediatric Drug-Resistant Epilepsy: Physician Perspectives.Journal of child neurology · 2021
   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

5 authors.

Funding

Abstract

PubMed holds no abstract for this paper.

Indexed as