ArticleJournal of medical ethics and history of medicine2024
The challenges of research in the field of human dignity.
Article in Journal of medical ethics and history of medicine, 2024. 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.
- Psychosocial risks and ethical implications of technology: considerations for decent work.Annals of work exposures and health · 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
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Research on human dignity is crucial for understanding the ethical foundations of human rights. Neglecting to address certain pitfalls in this area of research can lead to adverse effects, including the perpetuation of discrimination, the misrepresentation of dignity across different schools of thought, and the weakening of ethical standards in human rights discourse. The present study aims to identify such challenges by analytically examining outstanding research in this field. Our surveys have identified challenges and pitfalls that were categorized into two groups: challenges in the field of materials, and challenges in the field of methods. In terms of materials, researchers may fail to adequately consider the historical and cultural contexts that shape these views, while in terms of methods, they may overlook the diverse perspectives that contribute to a comprehensive understanding of dignity. Consequently, it is imperative for researchers to remain vigilant and avoid these pitfalls to ensure that their work upholds the true essence of human dignity and effectively advocates for the rights of all individuals, especially those from marginalized backgrounds.
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.