SynthesisBMC medical ethics2024
Ethical issues in genomics research in persons with Alzheimer's Disease/Alzheimer's Disease-related dementia (AD/ADRD): a systematic review.
Synthesis in BMC medical ethics, 2024. 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
5 authors.
Funding
Abstract
introductionGiven the growing number of Alzheimer's Disease and Alzheimer's Disease Related Dementias (AD/ADRD) genomics research projects and the vulnerabilities of study participants, it is critical to evaluate the literature on the ethical challenges in such studies to ensure high ethical standards.
methodsWe conducted a systematic review of the literature on ethical issues in AD/ADRD genomics research. We searched Embase, PsycINFO, CiNAHL, Scopus, and Ovid Medline for empirical and normative papers published in peer-reviewed journals on the ethical issues involved in conducting genomics research among persons with AD/ADRD. We used ethical principles from an existing framework as a priori codes to categorize the ethical issues and adapted another framework of Dementia Research Ethical Issues (DREI) as subcategories for our synthesis. We used the 2021 PRISMA guidelines to guide our study.
resultsWe screened 5,509 papers and included 27 of these papers in the systematic review after deduplication, title, and full-text review. The papers contained 109 ethical issues that were mapped against 42 out of 75 relevant DREIs. The highest number of DREIs were mapped to "respect for persons and communities", "favorable risk-benefit ratio", "informed consent" and "scientific validity". The least mapped principles to the DREIs were "fair participant selection", "independent review", "social value", and "collaborative partnership".
conclusionOur review showed that there is a dearth of literature on the ethical principles of "fair participant selection", "independent review", "social value" and "collaborative partnership" in genomics research on AD/ADRDs. It is difficult to draw firm conclusions from the distribution of attention paid to specific principles because these may only reflect the concerns of AD/ADRD genomics research ethicists in high-income countries. There is need for more research on the ethics of AD/ADRD genomics research in low and middle-income countries for a more balanced account of the important ethical considerations in this field.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic 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 Socratic graph.