Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33481056›Full record

ArticleDer Nervenarzt2021

[Benefits and risks of psychiatric actions and the patient's right of self-determination].

Hanfried Helmchen

Open access · hybridAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Der Nervenarzt, 2021. 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
0.4field-weighted citation impact, top 34% 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, 4 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.

Hanfried HelmchenKlinik für Psychiatrie und Psychotherapie, Charite - Universitätsmedizin Berlin, Berlin, Deutschland. hanfried.helmchenq@charite.de.
Charité - Universitätsmedizin Berlin · DE

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The history of psychiatry shows that a right of self-determination of the mentally ill was widely unknown in the nineteenth century and became known in medicine through the juridical concept of informed consent as late as in the second half of the twentieth century. Since the beginning of the twenty-first century this human right has been increasingly recognized and respected in medical practice. This change of recognition is contributing to a change from a paternalistic to a participative medical attitude. In the context of an emancipatory development of society the increasing possibilities of effective therapies, which are rarely without risks, stimulate the necessity to inform the patient about the intended benefits and the potential risks of the recommended intervention. This gives the patient the opportunity to exercise the right of self-determination. Furthermore, by the transition from very successful acute medicine, although often with only short-term contact between physician and patient to long-term therapies of chronic diseases, the possibilities to understand the patient are increased, particularly in the mentally ill patient. This also enables the individual characteristics to be recognized better, both the restrictions and capabilities, to experience the patient as an individual, as a human being with individual peculiarities and to respect the right of self-determination by helping the patient to understand the benefits and risks of a recommended intervention and to balance them in a self-determined mode.

Indexed as

Patient RightsPersonal AutonomyHumansInformed ConsentPaternalismRisk AssessmentAcceptance of self-determinationBenefit-risk ratioDevelopment of caring interventionsDevelopment of therapeutic interventionsRecognition of risks

Identifiers

PMID33481056
PMCPMC8257510
OpenAlexW3123513061

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.