ReviewBMC medical ethics2023
Biases in bioethics: a narrative review.
Review in BMC medical ethics, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 11 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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
11 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Non-empirical methods for ethics research on digital technologies in medicine, health care and public health: a systematic journal review.Medicine, health care, and philosophy · 2024Pooled it
- Clarifying the muddle: towards a comprehensive taxonomy of cognitive biases in medicine.Medicine, health care, and philosophy · 2026Article
- Improving bioethics by clarifying and elaborating its methodology: a response to Gomez-Virseda and colleagues.Medicine, health care, and philosophy · 2026Article
- Moral diversity and the challenge of responsibility in AI-CDSS.Philosophy, ethics, and humanities in medicine : PEHM · 2026Article
- Anticipation and prevention of real risks of virtual environments in psychiatry.NPJ digital medicine · 2026Review
- Distance caregiving using smart home technologies: balancing ethical priorities in family decision-making by only children.BMC medical ethics · 2025Article
- Emotional Responses in Clinical Ethics Consultation Decision-Making: An Exploratory Study.Behavioral sciences (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Article
- Evaluating cognitive bias in clinical ethics supports: a scoping review.BMC medical ethics · 2025Article
- Exploring bias risks in artificial intelligence and targeted medicines manufacturing.BMC medical ethics · 2024Article
- The veracity function: integrity, and comprehensiveness of evidence.Journal of rehabilitation medicine · 2024Article
- Cognitive biases and moral characteristics of healthcare workers and their treatment approach for persons with advanced dementia in acute care settings.Frontiers in medicine · 2023Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
1 author.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Given that biases can distort bioethics work, it has received surprisingly little and fragmented attention compared to in other fields of research. This article provides an overview of potentially relevant biases in bioethics, such as cognitive biases, affective biases, imperatives, and moral biases. Special attention is given to moral biases, which are discussed in terms of (1) Framings, (2) Moral theory bias, (3) Analysis bias, (4) Argumentation bias, and (5) Decision bias. While the overview is not exhaustive and the taxonomy by no means is absolute, it provides initial guidance with respect to assessing the relevance of various biases for specific kinds of bioethics work. One reason why we should identify and address biases in bioethics is that it can help us assess and improve the quality of bioethics work.
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.