ReviewMonash bioethics review2022
The creation of the Belmont Report and its effect on ethical principles: a historical study.
Review in Monash bioethics review, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 19 papers.
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.
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.
Who cites it
19 citing papers in PubMed, 59 citations in OpenAlex.
- Mycosis fungoides in a Mexican pediatric series: Clinical, immunophenotypic, and therapeutic features.Revista medica del Instituto Mexicano del Seguro Social · 2026Article
- Return of health research findings in Nigeria-perspective of potential research participants.BMC medical ethics · 2026Article
- The Role of Advance Care Planning on Community Dwelling Adults' Coping Abilities and Death Attitudes: A Sequential Mixed-Methods Study.Journal of clinical nursing · 2026Article
- HIV Cure Research: Ethical and Real-World Practical Considerations for Pediatric and Adolescent Populations.Journal of the Pediatric Infectious Diseases Society · 2026Article
- Strengthening uptake of adolescent-friendly health services in Blantyre, Malawi.Journal of public health in Africa · 2026Article
- Biomedical research in Alzheimer's disease in a Latin American developing country: challenges in the informed consent process.Brain communications · 2026Review
- Traditional Chinese medicine nursing competency and its correlates among clinical nurses in Guangyuan City, China.Frontiers in medicine · 2026Article
- Prevalence of normal weight obesity among adults in Southeast Asia: Insights from a systematic review and meta-analysis.Metabolism open · 2025Review
- Clinicians' perspectives of managing common mental disorders among pregnant women in primary care settings: a qualitative exploratory study.Discover mental health · 2025Article
- Not whether but how: the ethics and Language of reporting back individual results.Environmental health : a global access science source · 2025Article
- Return of health research findings in Nigeria-perspective of potential research participants.Research square · 2025Article
- [Ethics in social research, its absences, urgencies, and possibilities: Critical proposals from Latin America].Salud colectiva · 2025Article
- Bridging Simulation and Practice in Medical History Taking: A Comprehensive Needs Assessment of Standardized Patient Competencies in Early Clinical Exposure.Journal of advances in medical education & professionalism · 2025Article
- The responsible conduct of police participatory research: A qualitative study of officers' ethical beliefs.Research ethics · 2025Article
- Applying an Agile Science Roadmap to Integrate and Evaluate Ethical Frameworks Throughout the Lifecycle and Use of Artificial Intelligence Tools in the Intensive Care Unit.Critical care nursing clinics of North America · 2025Review
- Informed consent: Navigating the bioethical complexities of clinical research.Bioinformation · 2025Article
- Ethical issues and the role of the ethics committees during COVID-19 research in pandemic era: a focus on an Italian ethics committee.Frontiers in public health · 2025Article
- Perceptions of journal editors on the use of eponyms in anatomical publishing: the need for compromise.Anatomical science international · 2024Article
- Ethics in scientific research: a lens into its importance, history, and future.Annals of medicine and surgery (2012) · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors at 3 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The Belmont Report continues to be held in high regard, and most bioethical analyses conducted in recent years have presumed that it affects United States federal regulations. However, the assessments of the report's creators are sharply divided. Understanding the historic reputation of this monumental report is thus crucial. We first recount the historical context surrounding the creation of this report. Subsequently, we review the process involved in developing ethical guidelines and describe the report's features. Additionally, we analyze the effect of unfolding events on the subsequent creation of federal regulations, especially on gene therapy clinical trials. Moreover, throughout this paper we evaluate the ethical principles outlined in this report and describe how they overlap with the issue of protecting socially vulnerable groups. Based on the analysis, we conclude that the features of the Belmont Report cannot be considered as having affected the basic sections of the federal regulations for ethical reviews that were made uniform in 1981. Nevertheless, regarding the regulations on gene therapy clinical trials-which were at first expected to be applicable to research involving children-in addition to implementing policies regarding the public review of protocols that passed ethical review, this report's principles are clearly reflected in the key notes that should have been referred to when the report was created.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.