Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33067664›Full record

ReviewBundesgesundheitsblatt, Gesundheitsforschung, Gesundheitsschutz2020

[Studies on novel immune therapies: challenges from an ethical point of view].

Norbert W Paul

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Bundesgesundheitsblatt, Gesundheitsforschung, Gesundheitsschutz, 2020. 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.

Norbert W PaulInstitut für Geschichte, Theorie und Ethik der Medizin, Universitätsmedizin Mainz, Am Pulverturm 13, 55131, Mainz, Deutschland. norbert.paul@uni-mainz.de.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Novel immune therapies are more and more based on the molecular differentiation of disease patterns and related clinical studies are thus more often characterized by so-called adaptive study designs (umbrella or basket studies including platform studies), which are continuously adjusted based on novel results. This paper analyses new study designs beyond the often-postulated need for regulation in order to identify ethical problems based on typical structural features and to - whenever possible - suggest solutions. Additionally to the relationship between social and scientific values of a study as well as aspects of the scientific validity of new forms of evidence, the inclusion of study subjects under the condition of relative uncertainty, specific challenges in the process of ethical approval, as well as ethical and practical challenges in the process of informing patients and receiving informed consent will be addressed.

Indexed as

Informed ConsentMoralsGermanyHumansResearch DesignAdaptive study designBasket studiesEthicsRisk-benefit analysisUmbrella studies

Identifiers

PMID33067664
PMCPMC7647972

What Socratic 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 Socratic graph.