ReviewSingapore medical journal2014
The potential for a controlled human infection platform in Singapore.
Review in Singapore medical journal, 2014. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 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
8 citing papers in PubMed, 21 citations in OpenAlex.
- How community members in Uganda perceive controlled human infection studies.Research ethics · 2025Article
- A Brief History of Human Challenge Studies (1900-2021) Emphasising the Virology, Regulatory and Ethical Requirements, Raison D'etre, Ethnography, Selection of Volunteers and Unit Design.Current topics in microbiology and immunology · 2024Review
- Article
- Human infection studies: Key considerations for challenge agent development and production.Wellcome open research · 2022Article
- The challenges ofFrontiers in immunology · 2022Article
- "At first, I was very afraid"-a qualitative description of participants' views and experiences in the first Human Infection Study in Malawi.Wellcome open research · 2021Article
- Multimodal Tracking of ControlledACS infectious diseases · 2019Article
- A framework for Controlled Human Infection Model (CHIM) studies in Malawi: Report of a Wellcome Trust workshop on CHIM in Low Income Countries held in Blantyre, Malawi.Wellcome open research · 2017Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
For over 100 years, controlled human infection (CHI) studies have been performed to advance the understanding of the pathogenesis, treatment and prevention of infectious diseases. This methodology has seen a resurgence, as it offers an efficient model for selecting the most promising agents for further development from available candidates. CHI studies are utilised to bridge safety and immunogenicity testing and phase II/III efficacy studies. However, as this platform is not currently utilised in Asia, opportunities to study therapeutics and vaccines for infections that are important in Asia are missed. This review examines the regulatory differences for CHI studies between countries and summarises other regulatory differences in clinical trials as a whole. We found that the regulations that would apply to CHI studies in Singapore closely mirror those in the United Kingdom, and conclude that the regulatory and ethical guidelines in Singapore are compatible with the conduct of CHI studies.
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.