ArticleGates open research2018
The
Article in Gates open research, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 21 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
21 citing papers in PubMed.
- Addressing global health equity through Global Collaborative Evidence Networks: a narrative literature review of governance models, power and participation.Globalization and health · 2026Review
- Co-creation in research, policy engagement and advocacy: Lessons and limits from two decades of practice at the African Population and Health Research Center.PLOS global public health · 2026Article
- A scoping review of equity toolkits for international academic partnerships.International journal for equity in health · 2025Article
- Importance of outbreak response research in bridging knowledge gaps on emerging infectious diseases.BMJ global health · 2025Article
- Strengthening implementation of integrated care for small and nutritionally at-risk infants under six months and their mothers: Pre-trial feasibility study.Maternal & child nutrition · 2025Article
- Global health reciprocal innovation: ethical, legal and regulatory considerations.BMJ global health · 2024Article
- Aligning the principles and practice of research integrity and research fairness in global health: a mixed-methods study.BMJ global health · 2024Article
- Exploring HIV/AIDS investigator perceptions of equity within research partnerships between low-and middle-income and high-income countries: a pilot survey.Health research policy and systems · 2023Article
- Improving social justice in observational studies: protocol for the development of a global and Indigenous STROBE-equity reporting guideline.International journal for equity in health · 2023Article
- With equity in mind: Evaluating an interactive hybrid global surgery course for cross-site interdisciplinary learners.PLOS global public health · 2023Article
- Towards achieving transnational research partnership equity: lessons from implementing adaptive platform trials in low- and middle-income countries.Wellcome open research · 2023Article
- The Equity Tool for Valuing Global Health Partnerships.Global health, science and practice · 2022Review
- Ethical challenges and moral distress among field epidemiologists.BMC public health · 2022Article
- 'Working relationships' across difference - a realist review of community engagement with malaria research.Wellcome open research · 2022Review
- Article
- Ghanaian views of short-term medical missions: The pros, the cons, and the possibilities for improvement.Globalization and health · 2021Article
- Should global financing be the main priority for pandemic preparedness?Lancet (London, England) · 2021Article
- Stakeholder perspectives on the ethico-legal dimensions of biobanking in South Africa.BMC medical ethics · 2021Article
- Building and Sustaining Effective Partnerships for Training the Next Generation of Global Health Leaders.Annals of global health · 2021Article
- Bridging research integrity and global health epidemiology (BRIDGE) statement: guidelines for good epidemiological practice.BMJ global health · 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
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
2017 marked the 70 anniversary of the Nuremberg Code. The ethics of research with human beings has been shaped by the simplicity of its core logic, i.e., that the voluntary consent of research participants is sacrosanct and, when given, creates profound obligations of care and respect on the part of researchers. But there are other aspects of the global research enterprise that warrant more deliberate ethical scrutiny. One of these is the fairness of research collaborations and partnerships and the many practical challenges that make fair partnerships difficult to achieve. Corruption in governments and institutions, unequal access to research funding among researchers and research institutions, and enormous disparities in institutional capacity to support research partnerships are just some of the factors that present obstacles to fair partnerships between high income country (HIC) and low and middle income country (LMIC) partners, and within LMICs and HICs alike. Serious attention to these structural disparities, and the ways they shape the ethical character of the research enterprise, is long overdue. Achieving fairness in research partnerships is, in essence, a complex policy and management challenge. Against this backdrop, COHRED has developed and pilot-tested the
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.