Erratum to: Ethics review of studies during public health emergencies - the experience of the WHO ethics review committee during the Ebola virus disease epidemic.

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.

1. Public health and research ethics education: the experience of developing a new cadre of bioethicists at a Ugandan institution.BMC medical education · 2024
   Article
2. 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 · 2023
   Article
3. Research Ethics Committees (RECs) and epidemic response in low and middle income countries.The Pan African medical journal · 2018
   Article

Corrections and comments

• Erratum for
  Ethics review of studies during public health emergencies - the experience of the WHO ethics review committee during the Ebola virus disease epidemic.2017

Authors and funding

6 authors.

Funding

Abstract

PubMed holds no abstract for this paper.