Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40327073›Full record

ArticleBundesgesundheitsblatt, Gesundheitsforschung, Gesundheitsschutz2025

[Medical ethical challenges of phage therapy-informed consent, study design and therapeutic trial].

Hans Zillmann

Abstract readEnglish Abstract
In one paragraph

Article in Bundesgesundheitsblatt, Gesundheitsforschung, Gesundheitsschutz, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from 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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

2 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Review
  2. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

1 author.

Hans ZillmannSeminar für Philosophie, Universität Erfurt, Alfred-Weber-Platz 4, 99089, Erfurt, Deutschland. hans.zillmann@uni-erfurt.de.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The antibiotics crisis is increasing interest in bacteriophages and related therapeutic approaches. The translation of phage therapy into clinical application faces various ethical challenges. These include the patient's informed consent based on patient information as well as open questions regarding an ethically sound study design. In addition, further ethical problems arise from the current situation of phage therapy in Germany with regard to equity of access. This article reflects on the three aspects of phage therapy mentioned above. The results show that phage therapy does not pose any requirements for patient information that could not be solved by adapting the information provided. Questions regarding an adapted study design arise against the background of the placebo dilemma, possible resistance to antibiotics and the expected small number of study participants. An attempt can be made to respond to these challenges by adapting the study design. As a result, the studies deviate from the gold standard, which is randomized, controlled and double-blind studies. A balance must be struck here between evidence requirements and the protection of study participants. From an ethical point of view, the protection of participants must be given greater weight. The current situation of phage therapy in Germany poses an ethical problem, as both the individualised therapeutic trial and the resulting medical tourism that can be observed stand in the way of the demand for fair access and distribution. In order to overcome this status, the magistral prescription represents a possible interim step until clarity has been gained about an appropriate study design.

Indexed as

Clinical Trials as TopicInformed ConsentPhage TherapyResearch DesignGermanyHumansAutonomyBacteriophagesJusticeMedical ethicsTranslation

Identifiers

PMID40327073
PMCPMC12129839

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.