ArticleWorld journal of methodology2025
Navigating the ethical terrain: Off-label and experimental treatments in medical case reports.
Article in World journal of methodology, 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.
- Ethical Oversight in Clinical Innovation: Navigating the Case Report Dilemma.Journal of orthopaedic 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
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
This article explores the ethical considerations surrounding the reporting of off-label and experimental treatments in medical case reports, with a focus on fields such as oncology, psychiatry, and pediatrics. It emphasizes the balance between innovation and evidence-based medicine, highlighting the critical role of case reports in disseminating clinical experiences and advancing medical knowledge. The discussion delves into the ethical framework guiding case reporting, including principles of patient autonomy, informed consent, non-maleficence, beneficence, justice, and transparency. Challenges such as negative outcome reporting, commercial interests, and the balance between innovation and caution are examined. Recommendations for ethical vigilance, the development of comprehensive guidelines, and the role of regulatory bodies are proposed to ensure patient safety and uphold scientific integrity. The article concludes by underscoring the importance of a collaborative effort among clinicians, researchers, ethicists, and regulatory bodies to foster the responsible advancement of medical science while adhering to the highest ethical standards.
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.