↓ Skip to main content

Clinical research without consent in adults in the emergency setting: a review of patient and public views

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Medical Ethics, April 2008
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (92nd percentile)

Mentioned by

news
1 news outlet
policy
1 policy source
twitter
4 tweeters
facebook
1 Facebook page

Citations

dimensions_citation
38 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
71 Mendeley
connotea
1 Connotea
Title
Clinical research without consent in adults in the emergency setting: a review of patient and public views
Published in
BMC Medical Ethics, April 2008
DOI 10.1186/1472-6939-9-9
Pubmed ID
Authors

Jan Lecouturier, Helen Rodgers, Gary A Ford, Tim Rapley, Lynne Stobbart, Stephen J Louw, Madeleine J Murtagh

Abstract

In emergency research, obtaining informed consent can be problematic. Research to develop and improve treatments for patients admitted to hospital with life-threatening and debilitating conditions is much needed yet the issue of research without consent (RWC) raises concerns about unethical practices and the loss of individual autonomy. Consistent with the policy and practice turn towards greater patient and public involvement in health care decisions, in the US, Canada and EU, guidelines and legislation implemented to protect patients and facilitate acute research with adults who are unable to give consent have been developed with little involvement of the lay public. This paper reviews research examining public opinion regarding RWC for research in emergency situations, and whether the rules and regulations permitting research of this kind are in accordance with the views of those who ultimately may be the most affected.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 4 tweeters who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 71 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United Kingdom 2 3%
Japan 1 1%
Peru 1 1%
Unknown 67 94%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 13 18%
Researcher 11 15%
Student > Master 10 14%
Student > Postgraduate 5 7%
Student > Doctoral Student 5 7%
Other 19 27%
Unknown 8 11%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 36 51%
Nursing and Health Professions 6 8%
Arts and Humanities 4 6%
Psychology 3 4%
Computer Science 3 4%
Other 10 14%
Unknown 9 13%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 19. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 15 March 2018.
All research outputs
#865,196
of 13,594,052 outputs
Outputs from BMC Medical Ethics
#85
of 581 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#14,809
of 199,707 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Medical Ethics
#1
of 1 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 13,594,052 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 93rd percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 581 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 10.6. This one has done well, scoring higher than 85% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 199,707 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 92% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 1 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has scored higher than all of them