Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36723953›Full record

ReviewBritish medical bulletin2023

Children and bioethics: clarifying consent and assent in medical and research settings.

Merle Spriggs

Abstract readReview
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Review in British medical bulletin, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 30 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
30citing papers in PubMed, 2 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

30 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Review
  8. Review
  9. Review
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Review
  13. Review
  14. Article
  15. Review
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Review
  19. Article
  20. 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.

Merle SpriggsChildren's Bioethics Centre, Melbourne School of Population and Global Health, University of Melbourne, Parkville, VIC 3052, Australia.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

introductionThe concept of consent in the pediatric setting is complex and confusing. Clinicians and researchers want to know whose consent they should obtain, when a child can provide independent consent and how that is determined. The aim of this article is to establish what produces the justification to proceed with medical or research interventions involving children and the role of consent in that. I clarify concepts such as consent, assent, capacity and competence. SOURCE OF DATA: Literature review. AREAS OF AGREEMENT: Engaging with children and involving them in decisions about matters that affect them is a good thing. AREAS OF CONTROVERSY: The role of competence or capacity and the question of when a child can provide sole consent. GROWING POINTS: Flawed assumptions around competence/capacity. AREAS FOR DEVELOPING RESEARCH: An account of children's well-being that accommodates children's interests during the transition to adulthood.

Indexed as

Decision MakingInformed ConsentChildHumansassentbioethicscapacitychildrencompetencedecisional authoritydissentinformed consent

Identifiers

PMID36723953
PMCPMC10075240

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.