ReviewClinical trials (London, England)2019
Regulating impact on bystanders in clinical trials: An unsettled frontier.
Review in Clinical trials (London, England), 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 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
7 citing papers in PubMed.
- Third-Party Perspective in Medical Research Ethics: A Case Series of Clinical Trials Involving Individuals with Sexual Interest in Children.Journal of bioethical inquiry · 2026Article
- Principal Investigator Responsibility for Flagging Research with Dual-Use or Pandemic Risk.Applied biosafety : journal of the American Biological Safety Association · 2025Article
- A partner protection package for HIV cure-related trials involving analytical treatment interruptions.The Lancet. Infectious diseases · 2023Review
- Ethics of non-therapeutic research on imminently dying patients in the intensive care unit.Journal of medical ethics · 2023Article
- Ethical considerations within pragmatic randomized controlled trials in dementia: Results from a literature survey.Alzheimer's & dementia (New York, N. Y.) · 2022Article
- Article
- Informed consent for controlled human infection studies in low- and middle-income countries: Ethical challenges and proposed solutions.Bioethics · 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
4 authors.
Funding
Abstract
This article informally reviews key research ethics guidelines and regulations, academic scholarship, and research studies and finds wide variety in how they consider risk to bystanders in medical research (namely, non-participants whom studies nevertheless place at risk). Some of these key sources give no or very little consideration to bystanders, while others offer them the utmost protection (greater than they offer study participants). This unsettled frontier would benefit from a deeper investigation of the ethics of protecting research bystanders.
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.