ArticleEnvironmental health perspectives2009
Environmental health research and the observer's dilemma.
Article in Environmental health perspectives, 2009. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.
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
5 citing papers in PubMed.
- Communicating environmental exposure results and health information in a community-based participatory research study.BMC public health · 2018Article
- Disclosure of individualized research results: a precautionary approach.Accountability in research · 2011Article
- Municipal bylaw to reduce cosmetic/non-essential pesticide use on household lawns - a policy implementation evaluation.Environmental health : a global access science source · 2011Article
- Sharing unexpected biomarker results with study participants.Environmental health perspectives · 2011Article
- Balancing scientific and community interests in community-based participatory research.Accountability in research · 2010Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
1 author.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundEnvironmental health researchers frequently study people in occupational, educational, recreational, or domestic settings who are exposed to hazardous agents. OBJECTIVE/DISCUSSION: Deciding whether-and how-to inform research subjects about risks they face in their environment can be a challenging task for investigators. Because legal rules and professional guidelines do not cover this topic, investigators must carefully consider their ethical obligations in light of the facts and circumstances.
conclusionTo navigate through this dilemma, investigators should consider the evidence for the risks, the nature of the risks, the usefulness of risk information to the subjects, and the effects on the study and community of informing subjects about risks.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What 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.