What's right (and wrong) with racially stratified research and therapies.

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.

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.

Who cites it

3 citing papers in PubMed.

1. A scoping review of guidelines for the use of race, ethnicity, and ancestry reveals widespread consensus but also points of ongoing disagreement.American journal of human genetics · 2022
   Article
2. Counting Oceanians of Non-European, Non-Asian Descent (ONENA) in the South Pacific to Make Them Count in Global Health.Tropical medicine and infectious disease · 2019
   Article
3. Disparities in the provision of medical care: an outcome in search of an explanation.Journal of behavioral medicine · 2009
   Review

Corrections and comments

• Comment on
  There is no scientific rationale for race-based research.2007

Authors and funding

1 author.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

Abstract

PubMed holds no abstract for this paper.

Indexed as