Evidence map›Paper›PMID 17413075›Full record

ArticleAmerican journal of public health2007

Expanding Bioshield: a call for caution.

Thomas May

Open access · greenAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in American journal of public health, 2007. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing papers in PubMed
0.3field-weighted citation impact, top 30% 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

2 citing papers in PubMed, 3 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

1 author at 1 institution in 1 country.

Thomas MayCenter for the Study of Bioethics, Medical College of Wisconsin, 8701 Watertown Plank Rd, Milwaukee, WI 53226, USA. tmay@mcw.edu
Medical College of Wisconsin · US

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The Bioshield Initiative seeks to stimulate development of new drugs and vaccines to prevent and treat diseases caused by biological agents likely to be used by terrorists, and recent proposals have sought to expand patent protections in this context. To the extent that patent protections are needed as part of the incentive structure for new drug and vaccine development, it may be better to strengthen patent protections on nonterror-related drugs and vaccines to avoid production capacity problems, as well as follow-up research and development problems. However, at the same time, both practical and ethical considerations argue that the good that might be achieved through expanded patent protections come at costs that make this strategy unacceptable.

Indexed as

VaccinesBiomedical ResearchBioterrorismDisaster PlanningDrug IndustryHumansPublic Health AdministrationResearch Support as TopicUnited StatesVaccines

Identifiers

PMID17413075
PMCPMC1854982
OpenAlexW2041353350

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.