ArticleAmerican journal of public health2013
The best possible intentions testing prophylactic approaches on humans in developing countries.
Article in American journal of public health, 2013. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Patient, parent and provider perspectives on sickle cell disease genetics research in Jamaica.PLOS global public health · 2026Article
- A roadmap to increase diversity in genomic studies.Nature medicine · 2022Review
- COVID-19 and Moral Imperialism in Multinational Clinical Research.Archives of medical research · 2020Article
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
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Debates on human experiments in developing countries focus on ethical principles such as informed consent, accountability, involvement of the concerned communities, and the improvement of local health services. Public health specialists who conducted human experiments in Rio de Janeiro (1902-1905) and in Guatemala (1947-1948) believed, however, that they were acting in the best interests of local populations, were aware of the importance of informed consent, were closely collaborating with local health professionals, and were contributing to the development of local health structures. Nevertheless, their investigations went dramatically wrong. An initial desire to conduct ethically and scientifically sound studies was undermined by pressure to obtain results and to save the researchers' initial investment, the possibility of freely using hospitalized patients as experimental participants, uncritical help from local professional elites, and structural pitfalls of experimenting with severely deprived people. These elements can still be found in trials of preventive methods in the Global South.
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.