Deliberation to Promote Shared Sovereignty in Health Research: Four Questions to Clarify Goals, Methods, and Scope.

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

2 citing papers in PubMed.

1. Biological sample donation and informed consent for neurobiobanking: Evidence from a community survey in Ghana and Nigeria.PloS one · 2022
   Article
2. Unraveling the Ethical, Legal, and Social Implications of Neurobiobanking and Stroke Genomic Research in Africa: A Study Protocol of the African Neurobiobank for Precision Stroke Medicine ELSI Project.International journal of qualitative methods
   Article

Corrections and comments

• Commented on by
  Response to Open Peer Commentaries on "Governance of Transnational Global Health Research Consortia and Health Equity".2017
• Comment on
  Governance of Transnational Global Health Research Consortia and Health Equity.2016

Authors and funding

3 authors.

Funding

Abstract

PubMed holds no abstract for this paper.

Indexed as