ArticleBMJ (Clinical research ed.)1996
Informed consent in human experimentation before the Nuremberg code.
Article in BMJ (Clinical research ed.), 1996. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT07149506 (Efficacy of Oral or Topical Catechins vs. Placebo as an Adjuvant for the Prevention and Management of Radiation Dermatitis in Oncology Patients), which is not on this map. Cited by 76 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.
Efficacy of Oral or Topical Catechins vs. Placebo as an Adjuvant for the Prevention and Management of Radiation Dermatitis in Oncology Patients: a Randomized Trial
Who cites it
76 citing papers in PubMed, 448 citations in OpenAlex.
- Ethical considerations in conducting surgical research in severe complicated intra-abdominal sepsis.World journal of emergency surgery : WJES · 2019Trial
- Trial
- Wavelet Spectrum in a Multi-Channel Network May Reduce Biopsy Rates on Diagnosis of Breast Tumors With BI-RADS Category 4a or Higher.Journal of ultrasound in medicine : official journal of the American Institute of Ultrasound in Medicine · 2026Article
- Before thalidomide: Heinrich Mückter and the Nazi typhus complex.Medical history · 2026Article
- Effectiveness and Validity of Informed Consent in Patients Undergoing Surgery in Cameroon: A Prospective Survey.The Journal of surgical research · 2026Article
- Martin Salgo and the Dawn of Patient Autonomy.Annals of surgery open : perspectives of surgical history, education, and clinical approaches · 2025Article
- Chasing 'vulnerability' across six decades of the Declaration of Helsinki.Monash bioethics review · 2025Article
- Evaluation of health laboratory ethical compliance among laboratory practitioners in Kinondoni District, Tanzania.BMC health services research · 2025Article
- Informed consent: Navigating the bioethical complexities of clinical research.Bioinformation · 2025Article
- Parental engagement in research on paediatric lower respiratory tract infections in Indonesia.BMC pediatrics · 2024Article
- The Syphilis Pandemic Prior to Penicillin: Origin, Health Issues, Cultural Representation and Ethical Challenges.Acta dermato-venereologica · 2024Review
- Evolution of informed consent in research: From the Hippocratic Oath to the tailored consent.Open research Europe · 2024Article
- [Everyday transgressions of borderlines: the scandalization of clinical drug trials of the psychiatrist Roland Kuhn].Der Nervenarzt · 2023Review
- [The genesis of informed consent in the context of medical research ethics 1900-1931].Urologie (Heidelberg, Germany) · 2023Review
- Heterogeneity in pragmatic randomised trials: sources and management.BMC medicine · 2022Article
- Surgeons, Hernia Surgery and Informed Consent in the Seventeenth Century Ottoman Istanbul.World journal of surgery · 2022Article
- Evaluating models of consent in changing health research environments.Medicine, health care, and philosophy · 2022Article
- The Ethics of Translational Audiology.Audiology research · 2022Review
- Four reasons why too many informed consents to clinical research are invalid: a critical analysis of current practices.BMJ open · 2022Review
- Self-experimentation in the COVID Era: Is it morally justifiable? - A perspective.International journal of surgery (London, England) · 2022Article
16 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.
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 at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The issue of ethics with respect to medical experimentation in Germany during the 1930s and 1940s was crucial at the Nuremberg trials and related trials of doctors and public health officials. Those involved in horrible crimes attempted to excuse themselves by arguing that there were no explicit rules governing medical research on human beings in Germany during the period and that research practices in Germany were not different from those in allied countries. In this context the Nuremberg code of 1947 is generally regarded as the first document to set out ethical regulations in human experimentation based on informed consent. New research, however, indicates that ethical issues of informed consent in guidelines for human experimentation were recognised as early as the nineteenth century. These guidelines shed light on the still contentious issue of when the concepts of autonomy, informed consent, and therapeutic and non-therapeutic research first emerged. This issue assumes renewed importance in the context of current attempts to assess liability and responsibility for the abuse of people in various experiments conducted since the second world war in the United States, Canada, Russia, and other nations.
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.