ArticleWellcome open research2019
Expert voices and equal partnerships: establishing Controlled Human Infection Models (CHIMs) in Vietnam.
Article in Wellcome open research, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 10 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
10 citing papers in PubMed.
- Vietnamese University Students' Perceptions and Attitudes Toward Participation in Clinical Research: Mixed Methods Study.Journal of participatory medicine · 2026Article
- Balancing altruism, risk and ethics: Vietnamese students' views on human challenge studies.PloS one · 2026Article
- Exploring the participant experience in controlled human infection model (CHIM) trials: A modified grounded theory study.PloS one · 2025Article
- A Brief History of Human Challenge Studies (1900-2021) Emphasising the Virology, Regulatory and Ethical Requirements, Raison D'etre, Ethnography, Selection of Volunteers and Unit Design.Current topics in microbiology and immunology · 2024Review
- Ethical and practical considerations arising from community consultation on implementing controlled human infection studies usingGlobal bioethics = Problemi di bioetica · 2022Article
- Perceptions about controlled human infection model (CHIM) studies among members of ethics committees of Indian medical institutions: A qualitative exploration.Wellcome open research · 2022Article
- "At first, I was very afraid"-a qualitative description of participants' views and experiences in the first Human Infection Study in Malawi.Wellcome open research · 2021Article
- Towards a fair and transparent research participant compensation and reimbursement framework in Vietnam.International health · 2020Article
- Informed consent for controlled human infection studies in low- and middle-income countries: Ethical challenges and proposed solutions.Bioethics · 2020Article
- Application of Next-Generation Sequencing to Reveal How Evolutionary Dynamics of Viral Population Shape Dengue Epidemiology.Frontiers in microbiology · 2020Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
17 authors.
Funding
Abstract
The number of controlled human infection models (CHIMs) conducted worldwide has increased considerably in recent years, although few have been conducted in low and middle-income countries (LMICs), where infectious diseases have the greatest burden. Recently Oxford University Clinical Research Unit (OUCRU) in Ho Chi Minh City (HCMC) started developing CHIM research proposals motivated by the need to develop a clearer and more grounded understanding of the issues surrounding the conduct of CHIMs in LMICs. To explore initial perceptions and barriers to conducting CHIMs in Vietnam, OUCRU researchers conducted a set of key stakeholder interviews early in 2018 and held a CHIM workshop in HCMC in March 2018. This paper summarizes the discussions from the workshop and outlines a way forward for conducting CHIMs in Vietnam.
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.