Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36187414›Full record

ReviewThe Yale journal of biology and medicine2022

Rethinking Benefits in Health Research, Reflections of an Ethics Committee.

Liliana Mondragón Barrios, Gabriela Ariadna Martínez Levy, Adriana Díaz-Anzaldúa, Erika Estrada Camarena

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in The Yale journal of biology and medicine, 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. 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

4 authors.

Liliana Mondragón BarriosComité de Ética en Investigación, Instituto Nacional de Psiquiatría Ramón de la Fuente Muñíz, Ciudad de México, México.
Gabriela Ariadna Martínez LevyComité de Ética en Investigación, Instituto Nacional de Psiquiatría Ramón de la Fuente Muñíz, Ciudad de México, México.
Adriana Díaz-AnzaldúaComité de Ética en Investigación, Instituto Nacional de Psiquiatría Ramón de la Fuente Muñíz, Ciudad de México, México.
Erika Estrada CamarenaComité de Ética en Investigación, Instituto Nacional de Psiquiatría Ramón de la Fuente Muñíz, Ciudad de México, México.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The principle of beneficence in health research implies the effort of researchers to minimize risk to participants and maximize benefits to participants and society, which could be considered an abstract definition. Therefore, the benefits are not easily conceived by researchers who fail to achieve their goal, which is to privilege the well-being of participants. The purpose of this work was to describe and discuss the theoretical elements that support the principle of beneficence so that their knowledge allows designing and granting adequate benefits to participants. The present document defines the principle of beneficence. It also analyzes the maximization of benefits, the distinctions between different classifications of benefits, and the differentiation from compensations or incentives. With all this information, researchers must do a critical deliberation to select adequate benefits for participants of their studies, considering the type of study, potential participants, probability of risk, among others. These benefits should not be understood as a charity that researchers grant to the participant; they should be conceived as any form of action in favor of the well-being of participants. Participants must always be considered as moral agents, responsible for deciding whether the benefits would outweigh the possible negative unintended consequences of a particular study. Finally, no risk should be taken if it is not commensurate or proportional to the benefit of the research study.

Indexed as

Ethics CommitteesMoralsHumansBeneficencebenefitethic principlesethics committeehealthresearch

Identifiers

PMID36187414
PMCPMC9511940

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
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.