ArticlePublic health ethics2017
Research Ethics Governance in Times of Ebola.
Article in Public health ethics, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 34 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
34 citing papers in PubMed.
- Approval delays in multi-country COVID-19 trials: the case of COPCOV and the risk of therapeutic inertia.Trials · 2025Article
- Regulator experiences of trials during Ebola epidemics in Sierra Leone, Guinea, and the Democratic Republic of the Congo.Tropical medicine & international health : TM & IH · 2025Article
- Exploring views of South African research ethics committees on pandemic preparedness and response during COVID-19.Research ethics · 2024Article
- A scoping review of ethics review processes during public health emergencies in Africa.BMC medical ethics · 2024Article
- Article
- Research ethics during infectious disease outbreaks: A survey of African research stakeholders using the Ebola virus disease outbreak as a case.Journal of public health in Africa · 2023Article
- Considering Risks to Researchers and Staff in Low-Resource Settings during Public Health Crises: A Proposed Conceptual Model.Children (Basel, Switzerland) · 2023Article
- Key ethical issues encountered during COVID-19 research: a thematic analysis of perspectives from South African research ethics committees.BMC medical ethics · 2023Article
- Strengthening research ethics governance and regulatory oversight in Central America and the Dominican Republic in response to the COVID-19 pandemic: a qualitative study.Health research policy and systems · 2022Article
- Boosting ethics review capacity in public health emergency situations: Co-creation of a training model for French-speaking research ethics committees.Tropical medicine & international health : TM & IH · 2022Review
- Challenges to biobanking in LMICs during COVID-19: time to reconceptualise research ethics guidance for pandemics and public health emergencies?Journal of medical ethics · 2022Article
- How COVID-19 changed clinical research strategies: a global survey.The Journal of international medical research · 2022Article
- R&D during public health emergencies: the value(s) of trust, governance and collaboration.BMJ global health · 2022Review
- Pandemic preparedness and responsiveness of research review committees: lessons from review of COVID-19 protocols at KEMRI Wellcome Trust Research Programme in Kenya.Wellcome open research · 2022Article
- Governance frameworks for COVID-19 research ethics review and oversight in Latin America: an exploratory study.BMC medical ethics · 2021Article
- Conditions of Global Health Crisis Decision-Making-An Ethical Analysis.Journal of bioethical inquiry · 2021Article
- Challenges and proposed solutions in making clinical research on COVID-19 ethical: a status quo analysis across German research ethics committees.BMC medical ethics · 2021Article
- Article
- Special considerations in the management of adult patients with acute leukaemias and myeloid neoplasms in the COVID-19 era: recommendations from a panel of international experts.The Lancet. Haematology · 2020Review
- Addressing challenges for clinical research responses to emerging epidemics and pandemics: a scoping review.BMC medicine · 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
11 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The Médecins Sans Frontières (MSF) ethics review board (ERB) has been solicited in an unprecedented way to provide advice and review research protocols in an 'emergency' mode during the recent Ebola epidemic. Twenty-seven Ebola-related study protocols were reviewed between March 2014 and August 2015, ranging from epidemiological research, to behavioural research, infectivity studies and clinical trials with investigational products at (very) early development stages. This article examines the MSF ERB's experience addressing issues related to both the process of review and substantive ethical issues in this context. These topics include lack of policies regarding blood sample collection and use, and engaging communities regarding their storage and future use; exclusion of pregnant women from clinical and vaccine trials; and the difficulty of implementing timely and high-quality qualitative/anthropological research to consider potential upfront harms. Having noticed different standards across ethics committees (ECs), we propose that when multiple ethics reviews of clinical and vaccine trials are carried out during a public health emergency they should be accompanied by transparent communication between the ECs involved. The MSF ERB experience should trigger a broader discussion on the 'optimal' ethics review in an emergency outbreak and what enduring structural changes are needed to improve the ethics review process.
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.