ReviewCureus2025
Evaluation of the Ethical Controversies in Separation Surgery of Conjoined Twins: A Review of the Literature.
Review in Cureus, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Successful Separation of Female Omphalopagus Conjoined Twins at the Mother and Child University Hospital Center in N'Djamena, Chad: A Case Report.The American journal of case reports · 2026Article
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
This study aimed to evaluate the ethical controversies surrounding separation surgery of conjoined twins by examining the discussions in the relevant published literature. A critical review was conducted to study the ethical issues involved in the separation surgery of conjoined twins. A literature search on PubMed and Embase was performed on December 4, 2023, using the terms "ethics", "conjoined twins", and "separation". Relevant papers published in the last 10 years (2013-2023) were included. A total of seven papers were included: two were case reports and five were expert statements or opinions. The four pillars of ethics (beneficence, non-maleficence, autonomy, and justice) were a common approach adopted by most authors to analyse the ethical issues in the separation surgery of conjoined twins. Due to the need to consider the perspectives of two patients simultaneously, opposing arguments were common depending on the approach taken, especially when analysing the principles of beneficence and non-maleficence. All papers examined the possible difficulties in autonomy, with some exploring consent, specifically around decision-making. It was largely agreed that the parents should be the decision-makers due to the patients' lack of capacity, except in non-urgent situations, where patients should be given the opportunity to make their own decisions. Achieving equality in the distribution of shared organs and survival opportunities proved challenging. Other ethical principles were also discussed, such as the act-omission and double effect doctrines. Limitations of this paper included the limited geographical coverage of the studies, as well as the potential to miss relevant studies, including those conducted beyond the search period, those published in other languages, and those unpublished. From the overall results, there is no apparent definite answer as to whether separation surgery is justified. Due to every patient and situation being unique, the best approach should be decided on a case-by-case basis, guided by the four pillars of ethics, and with the involvement of families and ethical committees. Both the ethical considerations and other factors should be taken into account.
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.