Evidence map›Paper›PMID 41080019›Full record

ArticleBehavior analysis in practice2025

Ethics Dialogue: Spelling to Communicate - Reply by Mary Jane Weiss.

Mary Jane Weiss

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Behavior analysis in practice, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

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

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

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

1 author.

Mary Jane WeissEndicott College, Beverly, MA 01915 USA.ORCID 0000-0002-2836-3861

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Quigley and colleagues (2024, Behavior Analysis in Practice, https://doi.org/10.1007/s40617-024-01001-4) described a treatment recommendation scenario within a multi-disciplinary team setting for an adult with a developmental disability. The authors presented the information in a standard format to share how the involved parties identified, evaluated, and responded to the recommendation based upon their understanding of ethical decision-making. In this response, the right to effective treatment is emphasized as a primary obligation of the treatment team. The review of the procedure reveals that the intended intervention is one that is both unproven to be effective and similar to an intervention known to be harmful. Multiple available resources support the need to avoid the use of this intervention. Implications and suggestions for decision-making in clinical contexts are highlighted.

Indexed as

Ethical decision-makingEthicsEthics discourse

Identifiers

PMID41080019
PMCPMC12508367

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.