ArticleGeneral psychiatry2025
Ethical governance of clinical research on the brain-computer interface for mental disorders: a modified Delphi study.
Article in General psychiatry, 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.
- Application and Research Progress of BCI in Post-Stroke Psychiatric Disorders: A Narrative Review.Medical science monitor : international medical journal of experimental and clinical research · 2026Review
- Ethics of brain-computer interface in mental healthcare.Frontiers in human neuroscience · 2026Article
- From technological closed-loop to human-machine trust: a systematic review of ethical and communication challenges of brain-computer interface in elderly care.Frontiers in digital health · 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
9 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
abstractBackground: Clinical brain-computer interface (BCI) for mental disorders is an emerging interdisciplinary research field, posing new ethical concerns and challenges, yet lacking practical ethical governance guidelines for stakeholders and the entire community. Aims: This study aims to establish a multidisciplinary consensus of principles for ethical governance of clinical BCI research for mental disorders and offer practical ethical guidance to stakeholders involved. Methods: A systematic literature review, symposium and roundtable discussions, and a pre-Delphi (round 0) survey were conducted to form the questionnaire for the three-round modified Delphi study. Two rounds of surveys, followed by a third round of independent interviews of 25 experts from BCI-related research domains, were involved. We conducted quantitative analysis of responses and agreements among experts to reveal the consensus and differences regarding the ethical governance of mental BCI research from a multidisciplinary perspective. Results: The Delphi panel emphasised important concerns of ethical review practices and ethical principles within the BCI context, identified qualified and highly influential institutions and personnel in conducting and advancing clinical BCI research, and recognised prioritised aspects in the risk-benefit evaluation. Experts expressed diverse opinions on specific ethical concerns, including concerns about invasive technology, its impact on humanity and potential social consequences. Agreement was reached that the practices of ethical governance of clinical BCI for mental disorders should focus on patient voluntariness, autonomy, long-term effects and related assessments of BCI interventions, as well as privacy protection, transparent reporting and ensuring that the research is conducted in qualified institutions with strong data security. Conclusions: Ethical governance of clinical research on BCI for mental disorders should include interdisciplinary experts to balance various needs and incorporate the expertise of different stakeholders to avoid serious ethical issues. It requires scientifically grounded approaches, continuous monitoring and interdisciplinary collaboration to ensure evidence-based policies, comprehensive risk assessments and transparency, thereby promoting responsible innovations and protecting patient rights and well-being.
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.