ReviewWorld journal of methodology2025
Evolving ethos of medical research: A retrospective analysis of the declaration of Helsinki (1964-2024).
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.
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.
- Respecting privacy and upholding confidentiality: core ethical duties.Singapore medical journal · 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
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
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
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.