Evidence map›Paper›PMID 15289513›Full record

ArticleJournal of medical ethics2004

Further ethical and social issues in using a cocaine vaccine: response to Hall and Carter.

R E Ashcroft, C Franey

Open access · bronzeAbstract readComment
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of medical ethics, 2004. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
3citing papers in PubMed
0.7field-weighted citation impact, top 25% of its field
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

3 citing papers in PubMed, 18 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

2 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

R E AshcroftDepartment of Primary Health Care and General Practice, Medical Ethics Unit, Imperial College London, London, 324 Reynolds Building, St Dunstan's Road, London W6 8RP, UK. r.ashcroft@imperial.ac.uk
C Franey
Imperial College London · GBNIHR Imperial Biomedical Research Centre · GB

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Evaluation of the potential of a cocaine vaccine requires a detailed understanding of the intended and unintended social consequences of its use. Prospective technology assessment is always difficult, but in the case of treatment and prevention of cocaine addiction we need to understand not only the neuroscience and pharmacology of cocaine addiction, but also social attitudes to drug use and addiction, the social context of drug use, and the factors which make drug use a rational strategy for an addict and make treatment seeking or relapse more or less likely. By considering different scenarios related to differing levels of effectiveness of the vaccine, the authors argue that vaccination will be at best a useful adjunct to existing methods of treatment, rather than a substitute for them.

Indexed as

Ethics, MedicalAttitude to HealthCocaineCocaine-Related DisordersHumansPublic OpinionSocial EnvironmentVaccinesVaccines, ConjugateCocaineVaccinesVaccines, ConjugateHealth Care and Public Health

Identifiers

PMID15289513
PMCPMC1733918
OpenAlexW2102296492

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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 OpenQuestion graph.