Evidence map›Paper›PMID 17436056›Full record

ArticleEuropean journal of epidemiology2007

Can ethical reasoning contribute to better epidemiology? A case study in research on racial health disparities.

Inmaculada de Melo-Martín, Kristen K Intemann

Abstract read
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in European journal of epidemiology, 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
–field-weighted citation impact
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.

  1. Article
  2. Delimiting the role of ethical reasoning in epidemiology.European journal of epidemiology · 2007
    Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

2 authors.

Inmaculada de Melo-MartínDivision of Medical Ethics, Weill Medical College of Cornell University, 411 E. 69th Street, New York, NY 10021, USA. imd2001@med.cornell.edu
Kristen K Intemann

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

A common belief among epidemiologists and other scientists is that they ought not engage in ethical evaluation or endorse any particular ethical, political, or social values while involved in scientific reasoning. Such values are irrelevant to collecting and interpreting data and can only lead to bias. This view is also reflected in scientists' education. The authors argue that ethical values are crucial to conducting much epidemiological research. Focusing on epidemiological research on racial health disparities, they show that value judgments are inescapable when performing such research. Values are implicit in the framing of research questions, the identification of the problem, and the choices of design and methodology. By making value judgments explicit, scientists will be more likely to pay attention to them and thus assess them in critical ways. Finally, the implications that this has for scientific training are discussed. Scientific training should prepare scientists to engage in ethical reasoning not only because it will make them more responsible human beings, but also because it will make them better scientists.

Indexed as

Health Status IndicatorsSocioeconomic FactorsEpidemiologic MethodsEpidemiologyHealth StatusHumansProblem SolvingRacial GroupsSocial ValuesUnited States

Identifiers

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.