Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40900843›Full record

ReviewWorld journal of methodology2025

Evolving ethos of medical research: A retrospective analysis of the declaration of Helsinki (1964-2024).

Jovan Yi Jun Liau, Vishal G Shelat

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review 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.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing 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

1 citing paper in PubMed.

  1. 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

2 authors.

Jovan Yi Jun LiauLee Kong Chian School of Medicine, Nanyang Technological University, Singapore 308232, Singapore.
Vishal G ShelatDepartment of General Surgery, Tan Tock Seng Hospital, Singapore 308433, Singapore. vgshelat@gmail.com.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The World Medical Association's Declaration of Helsinki (DoH) serves as a key document of ethical guidance advocating principles of medical research involving human participants. Since its inception in 1964, the DoH has undergone several revisions, reflecting a dynamic evolution in our understanding of research ethics, spurred by gaps identified within the document, harms discovered, challenges identified during ongoing research activities, scientific advancements and societal shifts in values. The DoH addresses a challenge and a conflict that may arise between two key aspects of medical research: On one hand, the fundamental obligation of physicians to do no harm, and on the other, the essential need to ensure the efficacy and safety of medical interventions by testing them on human research participants or healthy volunteers. With each revision, increasing emphasis is given to distributive justice and beneficence and not only to patient autonomy. Despite being a comprehensive and concise document, occasional criticism is reported, such as with regards to the impracticability of obtaining informed consent amongst other challenges. This essay will examine the key changes across the DoH's iterations, highlighting the progressive strengthening of participant protection and the evolving relationship between research, societal benefit, and individual rights.

Indexed as

Declaration of HelsinkiEthicsInformed consentMedical researchWorld medical association

Identifiers

PMID40900843
PMCPMC12400323

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
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.