ArticleJournal of environmental health
Randomized controlled trials in environmental health research: ethical issues.
Article in Journal of environmental health. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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
7 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- The Relationship Between Physical Housing Characteristics, Housing Accessibility and Different Aspects of Health Among Community-Dwelling Older People: A Systematic Review.Journal of aging and health · 2024Pooled it
- Health Implications of Radon Exposure Among Children: A Systematic Review.Children (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Review
- Invited Perspective: A Critical Part of a Real-World Environmental Health Trial Is to Demonstrate That the Intervention Reduced Exposure.Environmental health perspectives · 2022Article
- Liver resection versus transarterial chemoembolization for huge hepatocellular carcinoma: a propensity score matched analysis.Scientific reports · 2021Article
- Randomized controlled trials in environmental health research: unethical or underutilized?PLoS medicine · 2015Article
- Municipal bylaw to reduce cosmetic/non-essential pesticide use on household lawns - a policy implementation evaluation.Environmental health : a global access science source · 2011Article
- Environmental Health Research Involving Human Subjects: Ethical Issues.Environmental health insights · 2008Article
Corrections and comments
- Commented on by
Authors and funding
1 author.
Funding
Abstract
Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) are becoming increasingly common in environmental health research. Like all studies involving human subjects, environmental health RCTs raise many ethical challenges, ranging from obtaining informed consent to minimizing risks to protecting privacy and confidentiality. One of the most important issues raised by these studies is whether it is ethical to withhold effective environmental health interventions from research subjects in order to satisfy scientific objectives. Although environmental health investigators usually do not have professional obligations to provide medical care to research subjects, they have ethical obligations to avoid exploiting them. Withholding interventions from research subjects can be ethical, provided that it does not lead to exploitation of individuals or groups. To avoid exploiting individuals or groups, investigators should ensure that research subjects and study populations receive a fair share of the benefits of research.
Indexed as
Identifiers
18236934PMC2653276What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.