Evidence map›Paper›PMID 41466713›Full record

ArticleBioinformation2025

Informed consent: Navigating the bioethical complexities of clinical research.

Ravindra Waykar, Yogesh A Kulkarni

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Bioinformation, 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

2 authors.

Ravindra WaykarCaspersen School of Graduate Studies, Drew University, 36 Madison Ave, Madison, NJ 07940, United States.
Yogesh A KulkarniShobhaben Pratapbhai Patel School of Pharmacy & Technology Management, SVKM's Narsee Monjee Institute of Management Studies (NMIMS) Deemed to be University, Mumbai, India.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Informed consent (IC) has traditionally been regarded as the fundamental principle of ethical clinical research involving human subjects. This article explores the limitations of the IC, assesses the need for a comprehensive ethical framework and proposes a roadmap for developing a framework that holistically safeguards participants' rights, safety and well-being. The evolving nature of medical technology and complex decision-making situations necessitate a more comprehensive approach to research ethics. This review emphasizes the need for a procedural plan to structure moral deliberations and address potential conflicts between ethical values. By integrating ethical values and benchmarks, a systematic and consistent approach is required to uphold ethical integrity in clinical research beyond the limitations of informed consent.

Indexed as

belmont reportclinical trialsdeclaration of helsinkiethical frameworkInformed consentnuremberg coderesearch ethics

Identifiers

PMID41466713
PMCPMC12744489

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.