ReviewOpen medicine (Warsaw, Poland)2025
Laboratory medicine between technological innovation, rights safeguarding, and patient safety: A bioethical perspective.
Review in Open medicine (Warsaw, Poland), 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Ethical Responsibility in Medical AI: A Semi-Systematic Thematic Review and Multilevel Governance Model.Healthcare (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Review
- Hunter-Schreger Bands: Clinical Implications and Future Directions, Scoping Review.International journal of dentistry · 2025Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Introduction: The evolution of Laboratory Medicine (LM) has expanded diagnostic and therapeutic horizons, yet ethical concerns pervade its advancements. This article explores the ethical challenges inherent in LM and advocates for a personalist bioethical framework as a guiding principle. It addresses issues such as patient data privacy, healthcare equity, communication of complex analysis results, genetic information management, and conflicts of interest. Objectives: The proposed framework emphasizes principles such as the defense of life, freedom, responsibility, totality in therapy, and sociality and subsidiarity, with a focus on human dignity. Results: Various bioethical theories address complex ethical issues in medicine and health sciences, often combined to guide clinical practice. This study focuses on personalist bioethics, prioritizing human dignity and intrinsic value, advocating for principles like defense of physical life, freedom, totality in therapy, and sociality. In LM, ethical analysis involves patient care, genetic testing, informed consent, and Artificial Intelligence integration, emphasizing transparency and patient autonomy. Conclusion: LM plays a crucial role in healthcare, necessitating ethical considerations amidst technological progress. Upholding ethical frameworks, such as the ethics of good work, can ensure equitable and quality healthcare delivery.
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.