CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 214Ethics in Clinical ResearchEthics and bioethics in healthcareBiomedical Ethics and Regulation

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 5 of the 5 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Informed Consent, Comparative Effectiveness, and Learning Health Care

Faden, Ruth R., Beauchamp, Tom L., Kass, Nancy E.·2014·New England Journal of Medicine
DOI 10.1056/nejmhle1313674
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

The authors argue that in a learning health care system with ethically robust oversight policies, a streamlined consent process could replace formal written informed-consent procedures for many studies, and patient consent would not be required at all for some trials.

Overview

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1056/nejmhle1313674

Cites

5 of 5 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Verification

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Citations

Cites

Show all 5 references

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Items 201–214 of 214

Related

See all

Metadata

Authors
Faden, R. R., Beauchamp, T. L., & Kass, N. E.
Affiliations
  • Johns Hopkins University (US)
  • Georgetown University (US)
ORCID
Venue
New England Journal of Medicine
Publisher
Massachusetts Medical Society
Published
2014-02-20
Volume
370
Issue
8
Pages
766-768
ISSN
  • 0028-4793 (ISSN-L)
  • 1533-4406
DOI
10.1056/nejmhle1313674
OpenAlex
W2022826022
Cited by
214
References
5
Citations by year
2026: 8 · 2025: 9 · 2024: 12 · 2023: 5 · 2022: 15 · 2021: 11 · 2020: 15 · 2019: 20 · 2018: 17 · 2017: 20 · 2016: 20 · 2015: 39 · 2014: 21
FWCI
33.02
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • New England Journal of Medicine (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Public Health, Environmental and Occupational Health › Ethics in Clinical Research
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Public Health, Environmental and Occupational Health › Ethics and bioethics in healthcare
  • Health Sciences › Nursing › Issues, ethics and legal aspects › Biomedical Ethics and Regulation
Keywords
informed consent, comparative effectiveness research, clinical trials, ethical oversight, patient consent, research ethics
MeSH terms
Delivery of Health Care, Humans, Informed Consent, Patient Participation, Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic, Ethics, Research, Comparative Effectiveness Research

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review