↓ Skip to main content

Ethical Issues of Participant Recruitment in Surgical Clinical Trials

Overview of attention for article published in Annals of Surgical Oncology, August 2013
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age
  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

twitter
4 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
17 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
26 Mendeley
citeulike
1 CiteULike
Title
Ethical Issues of Participant Recruitment in Surgical Clinical Trials
Published in
Annals of Surgical Oncology, August 2013
DOI 10.1245/s10434-013-3178-0
Pubmed ID
Authors

Peter Angelos

Abstract

Although the historical background of ethical principles of human subjects research are the same for surgery and nonsurgical fields, surgical clinical trials raise several specific ethical issues. Placebo arms in surgical trials are problematic because the closer the sham surgery is to a real operation, the greater the risks for subjects. In order to ethically enter subjects into a clinical trial, a researcher must have equipoise-that is, uncertainty about which treatment arm is more effective. Surgeons must diligently maintain skepticism about whether new treatments are actually better until objective data are available. The dynamic of informed consent between surgeons and patients may be negatively impacted if patients are convinced that new treatments are better even when there are no objective data. Although clinical trials in surgery often are challenging to develop and complete, there is an ethical and social responsibility for surgeons to participate in clinical trials so that data can be gathered to determine what treatments are safe and effective.

X Demographics

X Demographics

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

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 26 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 26 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 5 19%
Student > Bachelor 5 19%
Student > Doctoral Student 2 8%
Lecturer 2 8%
Other 2 8%
Other 6 23%
Unknown 4 15%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 11 42%
Arts and Humanities 2 8%
Social Sciences 2 8%
Environmental Science 1 4%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 1 4%
Other 3 12%
Unknown 6 23%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 2. 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 17 December 2013.
All research outputs
#13,394,135
of 22,727,570 outputs
Outputs from Annals of Surgical Oncology
#3,798
of 6,435 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#104,795
of 198,945 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Annals of Surgical Oncology
#36
of 70 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,727,570 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 39th percentile – i.e., 39% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 6,435 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 6.4. This one is in the 39th percentile – i.e., 39% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
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 198,945 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 45th percentile – i.e., 45% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 70 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 45th percentile – i.e., 45% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.