ArticleFrontiers in public health2024
Paediatric systemic inflammatory response syndrome (SIRS) and the development of patient-specific therapy: ethical perspectives through experts' opinions.
Article in Frontiers in public health, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Research for personalised therapies concerning the Systemic Inflammatory Response Syndrome (SIRS) in children involves the utilisation of OMICS technologies and Artificial Intelligence (AI). Methods: To identify specific ethical challenges through the perspective of healthcare professionals, we conducted 10 semi-structured interviews. The development of interview questions for the interviews was preceded by a systematic review of the scientific literature. To address the complexities of paediatric emergency research, informed consent, and data processing, experts with expertise in paediatric intensive care, computer science, and medical law were sought. After the transcription and anonymisation, the analysis followed established guidelines for qualitative content and thematic analysis. Results: Interviewees highlighted the intricacies of managing consent in personalised SIRS research due to the large amount and complexity of information necessary for autonomous decision-making. Thus, instruments aimed at enhancing the understanding of legal guardians and to empowering the child were appreciated and the need for specific guidelines and establishing standards was expressed. Medical risks were estimated to be low, but the challenges of securing anonymisation and data protection were expected. It was emphasised that risks and benefits cannot be anticipated at this stage. Social justice issues were identified because of possible biases within the research population. Our findings were analysed using current ethical and legal frameworks for research with a focus on the particularities of the patient group and the emergency background. In this particular context, experts advocated for an enabling approach pertaining to AI in combination with OMICS technologies. Conclusion: As with every new technological development, ethical and legal challenges cannot be foreseen for SIRS-personalised treatment. Given this circumstance, experts emphasised the importance of extending the ethics-legal discourse beyond mere restrictions. The organisation of supervision should be reconsidered and not limited only to the precautionary principle, which
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.