Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34554481›Full record

ReviewBiologia futura2021

The ethics of regenerative medicine.

Göran Hermerén

Abstract readReview
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Review in Biologia futura, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
5citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–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

5 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Review
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. 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.

Göran HermerénDepartment of Medical Ethics, Biomedical Centre, Lund University, Lund, Sweden. goran.hermeren@med.lu.se.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-7890-0314

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Most developments in regenerative medicine have in common that there are many uncertainties and knowledge gaps. These features make the evaluation of long-term consequences of the available options difficult and have consequences for the ethical issues raised. This paper presents an overview of ethical issues raised in regenerative medicine, using as a starting point a list of stakeholders and their interests. Ethical issues are introduced via a simplified account of a project that focuses on several difficult problems, as well as a conceptual framework consisting of the following key concepts: present situation, goals, difficulties on the road toward the goals, and strategies for dealing with the difficulties. The list of ethical issues discussed includes safety and efficacy, patient consent, information, professional responsibilities, as well as equity and fairness. The issues and the underlying values need to be clarified, specified, debated, and ranked in order of importance. A particular problem is that values sometimes clash: Certain values can be achieved only at the expense of others. If and when values clash, principles are available that can guide the decision making. The paper comments on two such principles with implications for the particular issue of patient access to experimental treatments: the precautionary principle and the principle of proportionality. The paper ends with some conclusions for the future.

Indexed as

HumansOrganizational ObjectivesRegenerative MedicineEthicsPrecautionary principlePrinciple of proportionalityRegenerative medicineValue conflicts

Identifiers

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.