Evidence map›Paper›PMID 31060618›Full record

ArticleBMC medical ethics2019

Ethics preparedness: facilitating ethics review during outbreaks - recommendations from an expert panel.

Abha Saxena, Peter Horby, John Amuasi, Nic Aagaard, Johannes Köhler, Ehsan Shamsi Gooshki, Emmanuelle Denis, Andreas A Reis, ALERRT-WHO Workshop, Raffaella Ravinetto

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in BMC medical ethics, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 46 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
46citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
8.1field-weighted citation impact, top 1% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

46 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 95 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Guideline
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Review
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

10 authors at 6 institutions in 6 countries.

Abha SaxenaGlobal Health Ethics Team, World Health Organization, Geneva, Switzerland.
Peter HorbyCentre for Tropical Medicine and Global Health, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK.
John AmuasiKumasi Center for Collaborative Research in Tropical Medicine, Kwame Nkrumah University of Science and Technology, Kumasi, Ghana.
Nic AagaardEthics Committees, Ministry of Health, Wellington, New Zealand.
Johannes KöhlerGlobal Health Ethics Team, World Health Organization, Geneva, Switzerland.
Ehsan Shamsi GooshkiMedical Ethics and History of Medicine Research Center, Tehran University of Medical Sciences, Tehran, Iran.
Emmanuelle DenisCentre for Tropical Medicine and Global Health, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK.
Andreas A ReisGlobal Health Ethics Team, World Health Organization, Geneva, Switzerland.
ALERRT-WHO Workshop
Raffaella RavinettoInstitutional Review Board, Institute of Tropical Medicine, Antwerp, Belgium. rravinetto@itg.be.ORCID 0000-0001-7765-2443
World Health Organization · CHMinistry of Health · NZUniversity of Oxford · GBInstituut voor Tropische Geneeskunde · BEKwame Nkrumah University of Science and Technology · GHUniversity of Geneva · CH

Funding

Wellcome TrustWellcome Trust 212162/Z/18/ZWorld Health Organization 001
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundEnsuring that countries have adequate research capacities is essential for an effective and efficient response to infectious disease outbreaks. The need for ethical principles and values embodied in international research ethics guidelines to be upheld during public health emergencies is widely recognized. Public health officials, researchers and other concerned stakeholders also have to carefully balance time and resources allocated to immediate treatment and control activities, with an approach that integrates research as part of the outbreak response. Under such circumstances, research "ethics preparedness" constitutes an important foundation for an effective response to infectious disease outbreaks and other health emergencies. MAIN TEXT: A two-day workshop was convened in March 2018 by the World Health Organisation Global Health Ethics Team and the African coaLition for Epidemic Research, Response and Training, with representatives of National Ethics Committees, to identify practical processes and procedures related to ethics review preparedness. The workshop considered five areas where work might be undertaken to facilitate rapid and sound ethics review: preparing national ethics committees for outbreak response; pre-review of protocols; multi-country review; coordination between national ethics committees and other key stakeholders; data and benefit sharing; and export of samples to third countries. In this paper, we present the recommendations that resulted from the workshop. In particular, the participants recommended that Ethics Committees would develop a formal national standard operating procedure for emergency response ethical review; that there is a need to clarify the terminology and expectations of pre-review of generic protocols and agree upon specific terminology; that there is a need to explore mechanisms for multi-country emergency ethical consultation, and to establish procedures for communication between national ethics committees and other oversight bodies and public health authorities. In addition, it was suggested that ethics committees should request from researchers, at a minimum, a preliminary data sharing and sample sharing plan that outlines the benefit to the population from which data and samples are to be drawn. This should be followed in due time by a full plan.

conclusionIt is hoped that the national ethics committees, supported by the WHO, relevant collaborative research consortia and external funding agencies, will work towards bringing these recommendations into practice, for supporting the conduct of effective research during outbreaks.

Indexed as

Disaster PlanningEthical ReviewDisease OutbreaksEducationEthics Committees, ClinicalEthics Committees, ResearchHumansEthics reviewInfectious disease outbreaksLow- and middle-income countriesPre-reviewRapid reviewResearch ethics

Identifiers

PMID31060618
PMCPMC6501283
OpenAlexW2947019289

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.