Evidence map›Paper›PMID 32835057›Full record

ReviewEthics, medicine, and public health

[Ethical approach to the issue of confinement of the elderly in the context of the COVID-19 pandemic: Prevention of frailty versus risk of vulnerability].

M Piccoli, T Tannou, I Hernandorena, S Koeberle

Open access · bronzeAbstract readEnglish AbstractReview
In one paragraph

Review in Ethics, medicine, and public health. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
3citing papers in PubMed
3.5field-weighted citation impact, top 6% 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

3 citing papers in PubMed, 15 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. 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

4 authors at 3 institutions in 2 countries.

M PiccoliDépartement médico-universitaire de gériatrie, AP-HP, centre université de Paris, site Broca, 54-56, rue Pascal, 75013 Paris, France.
T Tannouservice de gériatrie, CHU, 25000 Besançon, France.
I HernandorenaDépartement médico-universitaire de gériatrie, AP-HP, centre université de Paris, site Broca, 54-56, rue Pascal, 75013 Paris, France.
S Koeberleservice de gériatrie, CHU, 25000 Besançon, France.
Hôpital Broca · FRInserm · FRUniversité de franche-comté · FR

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

COVID-19 pandemic particularly affects older people and exposes them to a higher risk of mortality. Containment, social distancing and isolation measures have been implemented to limit viral transmission. While there is a clear rationale for reducing the contagiousness of the infection through this means, the adverse consequences of this social isolation, especially for this heterogeneous, aged and frail people, are difficult to apprehend. In particular, the disruption of the usual support and care ecosystems at home or in institutions may paradoxically increase the frailty of these people and lead to adverse events we wanted to avoid. On the other hand, the risk of a decrease in the older person's empowerment regarding his or her own health and social life decisions requires particular vigilance to prevent the risk of societal ageism. Regarding this population in particular, a possible conflict of values between individual and collective protection on one hand and respect for autonomy and independence on the other hand could exist. This article proposes an ethical reflection on the issue of containment of frail ageing people, based on medical ethics principles, in order to open up positive approaches of vulnerability that guarantee respect for the dignity of the person and equity in care access.

Indexed as

AgeismCOVID-19FrailtyGeriatricsSocial isolation

Identifiers

PMID32835057
PMCPMC7250767
OpenAlexW3031212146

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.