ReviewJournal of healthcare leadership2025
The Erosion of Healthcare and Scientific Integrity: A Growing Concern.
Review in Journal of healthcare leadership, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.
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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Preclinical pharmacokinetic modeling and clinical translation of SIG001, a novel anti-cancer therapeutic antibody targeting on cancer-derived sialylated IgG.Frontiers in pharmacology · 2026Article
- Cervical cancer molecular subtype identification and prognosis classification by a metabolism-related gene expression.Translational cancer research · 2025Article
- Assessment of the validity of ChatGPT-3.5 responses to patient-generated queries following BPH surgery.Scientific reports · 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
1 author.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Tremendous achievements in healthcare and science over the past 200 years have enhanced life expectancy in parallel with a shift from dogma to humanistic liberal education. Advancements in cancer have included vaccines treating causes of cancer (eg, hepatitis C- induced liver cancer and human papillomavirus-induced cervical cancer) along with improved cancer survival in children. In contrast, developments in cancer, frequently touted as "discoveries" or "breakthroughs" in media headlines, have been demonstrated to be ephemeral rather than game changers. In reality, cancer incidences are increasing, and relapse and mortality rates have not changed substantially. By this, we are experiencing today similar challenges to those before the so-called Humboldt reform. The trend towards managerialism with a focus on quantity in health care and science endangers their integrity. Methods: Due to the complexity of integrity of healthcare and science, in-depth contemplation of this review contains foundations of actions in healthcare and science, information regarding cancer, as an example, quantity focus of healthcare, technology, publishing, marketing and media, predatory publishers, followed by psychologic and sociologic aspects which influence our perception. Results: A complex paradoxical transformation has occurred, in which quality and humanism have been replaced by quantity, revenue, and marketing, together with "citation silence", (ignoring original findings), and increased corruption and misconduct. This shift explains why the integrity of healthcare and science is being eroded. Conclusion: Countries and societies are only as strong as their healthcare and science, both of which are only as strong as their emphasis on quality and integrity. Awareness of this situation may represent a first step toward a renewed focus on accountability.
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.