Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33710592›Full record

ArticleJournal of community genetics2022

The ethics of resource allocation in translational genomic medicine.

Christian Munthe

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of community genetics, 2022. 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
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. Resource allocation in genetic and genomic medicine.Journal of community genetics · 2022
    Article
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.

Christian MuntheDepartment of Philosophy, Linguistics and Theory of Science, University of Gothenburg, Box 200, SE-40540, Gothenburg, Sweden. Christian.munthe@gu.se.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-0761-960X

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Two basic models of the rationale of translational genomic medicine (TGM)-the "Lab Assisting Clinic" (LAC) and the "Clinic Assisting Lab" (CAL) models-are distinguished, in order to address the ethics of allocating resources for TGM. The basic challenge of justifying such allocation is for TGM to demonstrate sufficient benefits to justify the opportunity cost of lost benefits in other areas of medicine or research. While suggested ethics frameworks for translational medicine build on clearly distinguishing these models, actual TGM typically blurs them. Due to lack of and difficulty in collecting evidence, prospects for justifying the LAC model currently seem poor, but this difficulty might be overcome by more research that tests the very concept of TGM. The CAL model aims to thus advance science, but is ridden by ethical hazard, undermining attempts at justification. This leaves the notion of running bona fide controlled trials of entire TGM concepts that have been justified from the perspective of clinical and research ethics (and approved by IRBs). It remains, however, an open question if the outcomes of such trials will demonstrate benefits that can justify the investment in TGM. To advance the prospect of such justification further, charting of the cost-benefit profile of TGM compared to alternative health investments would be helpful.

Indexed as

BioethicsEthicsHealth policyOpportunity costResearch ethicsTranslational research

Identifiers

PMID33710592
PMCPMC9530098

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.