ArticleCureus2024
Ethical Dilemmas and Conventionalism in Healthcare: A Scoping Review.
Article in Cureus, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers, 2 of them syntheses 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
5 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.
- Clinical outcomes of interproximal enamel reduction in orthodontic treatment of children and adolescents: a systematic review.European archives of paediatric dentistry : official journal of the European Academy of Paediatric Dentistry · 2025Pooled it
- Aesthetic dentistry and ethics: a systematic review of marketing practices and overtreatment in cosmetic dental procedures.BMC medical ethics · 2025Pooled it
- Secure healthcare data management using federated learning, blockchain, and explainable artificial intelligence: a systematic review.Frontiers in digital health · 2026Review
- Knowledge, attitudes, and practices regarding advance care planning among emergency department healthcare providers in China: a multicenter cross-sectional study.Frontiers in public health · 2026Article
- Ethical dilemmas experienced by midwives in their professional practice in Northwestern Ethiopia: a phenomenological interview study.BMC medical ethics · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
This review aims to evaluate the current ethical dilemmas faced by healthcare practitioners, especially in dentistry, and analyze how conventionalism with ethical norms influences these challenges. By exploring the balance between evolving healthcare practices and established ethical principles, the review aims to provide insights into the ongoing ethical discussions and dilemmas within the field. A systematic search for relevant articles published between 2000 and July 2024 was conducted across various databases, including Web of Science, PubMed, Scopus, and EBSCO host. Studies that met specified eligibility criteria were included, and data on ethical dilemmas in healthcare and dentistry were assessed. To identify trends and inconsistencies in the existing literature, data extraction and synthesis of the findings were performed. Various ethical conundrums that affect dental healthcare professionals were identified by the literature review. The ethical dilemmas that are revealed through this are substandard dental care, inadequate treatment, inadequate sterilization, identity-related dilemmas, overtreatment, and conflict between truthfulness and beneficence. The review highlights common ethical dilemmas in healthcare, underscoring the need for improved resource management, patient communication, and consistent ethical practices.
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.