ReviewNeuromodulation : journal of the International Neuromodulation Society2026
Ethical Guidance for Investigational Implantable Neural Device Studies: Recommendations for Researchers and Research Ethics Committees.
Review in Neuromodulation : journal of the International Neuromodulation Society, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Implantable Neuromodulation Devices in Psychiatry: Human Fidelity and Implementation Challenges.The American journal of psychiatry · 2026Article
- Recommendations on post-trial responsibility in implantable neural device research: a multidisciplinary consensus study.BMC medical ethics · 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
10 authors.
Funding
Abstract
objectivesClinical studies of implantable neural devices raise unique ethical and legal challenges owing to the distinctive nature of these technologies and their research contexts. Persistent issues such as inadequate posttrial arrangements, psychologic risks, and study team roles have been highlighted in the literature. This study aims to address ongoing ethical challenges in clinical studies of implantable neural devices by providing practical recommendations for researchers and research ethics committees (RECs). MATERIALS AND
methodsBased on the synthesis of a comprehensive review of academic literature, existing ethical and legal guidelines, empirical studies, and input from various stakeholders, recommendations and their practical translation for RECs and researchers have been formulated.
resultsThe study presents recommendations organized into five central themes: 1) the study team, 2) participant selection and recruitment, 3) informed consent processes, 4) risk-benefit assessment, and 5) posttrial responsibilities. Moreover, two procedural recommendations aim to enhance REC review processes specific to investigational implantable neural devices studies.
conclusionsThese recommendations offer actionable guidance to help researchers align protocols with ethical and legal standards, and to assist RECs in anticipating and mitigating ethical risks in clinical studies involving implantable neural devices.
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.