ArticleMedicine, health care, and philosophy2026
A reply to "Fundamental issues in epistemic injustice in healthcare" by Nielsen, Nordgaard & Henriksen (2025) : Corresponding author.
Article in Medicine, health care, and philosophy, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Nielsen et al. (2025) have recently argued that the study of epistemic injustice in healthcare is subject to issues that, left unaddressed, threaten the ongoing research programme. One of their central worries is a lack of appropriate empirical evidence to support claims about the ubiquity and seriousness of these epistemic injustices which are commonly endorsed and rehearsed in publications on the topic. As researchers on the project Epistemic Injustice in Healthcare (EPIC), we offer responses to their concerns. While we sympathise with and develop some of their concerns, we express caution regarding others. We argue for an ongoing research agenda which is empirically-informed but maintains a pluralistic approach to research methods and approaches. This, we argue, is necessary in order to accommodate the complex social phenomenon of epistemic injustice in healthcare contexts.
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.