ArticleArchives of medical research2020
COVID-19 and Moral Imperialism in Multinational Clinical Research.
Article in Archives of medical research, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 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
6 citing papers in PubMed.
- Why 'elevating country voice' is not decolonizing global health: A frame analysis of in-depth interviews.PLOS global public health · 2023Article
- Participating in a vaccine trial for COVID-19 in Senegal: trust and information.Human vaccines & immunotherapeutics · 2021Article
- Exploring the perspectives of members of international tuberculosis control and research networks on the impact of COVID-19 on tuberculosis services: a cross sectional survey.BMC health services research · 2021Article
- Article
- Professional Commitment to Ethical Discussions Needed From Epidemiologists in the COVID-19 Pandemic.Journal of epidemiology · 2020Article
- Passive immunotherapy with convalescent plasma against COVID-19? What about the evidence base and clinical trials?Transfusion and apheresis science : official journal of the World Apheresis Association : official journal of the European Society for Haemapheresis · 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
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
A TV debate in April 2020 between two French doctors regarding the benefits of testing a coronavirus vaccine in Africa where there are no masks or treatments available has led to international criticism. This case highlights a problematic ethical double standard in multinational clinical research: trials that would be considered unethical in high income countries (e.g., placebo-controlled where there is an existing treatment) are nonetheless justified in low-and-middle-income countries because the existing standards of care are less (i.e., no access to a treatment). Underlying this ethical double standard in some multinational clinical trials is a moral imperialism and persistent colonialist thinking that must be rejected.
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.