Evidence map›Paper›PMID 37574550›Full record

ArticleTrials2023

A response to Al et al. Trials 2023;24:233.

Jon F Merz

Abstract readLetterComment
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Trials, 2023. 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. Response to Merz.Trials · 2023
    Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

1 author.

Jon F MerzDepartment of Medical Ethics & Health Policy, Perelman School of Medicine at the University of Pennsylvania, Blockley Hall 1427, 423 Guardian Drive, Philadelphia, PA, 19104-4884, USA. merz@pennmedicine.upenn.edu.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-0612-7104

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

In their recent paper, Al and colleagues (Trials 2023;24:233) argue that manipulation of the methods of recruitment using well-known techniques in order to increase enrollment can be ethically acceptable. This brief response challenges that notion as an affront to voluntariness and a devolution of the ethics of human subjects research to the "ethics" of the marketplace.

Indexed as

Informed ConsentPatient PreferenceEthical AnalysisHumansResearch SubjectsInformed consentPsychological manipulationRefusalVoluntariness

Identifiers

PMID37574550
PMCPMC10424340

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.