Evidence map›Paper›PMID 32669462›Full record

ArticlemSphere2020

Human Infection Challenge Studies: a Test for the Social Value Criterion of Research Ethics.

Nicholas G Evans

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in mSphere, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
4citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
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

4 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Opinion: For now, it's unethical to use human challenge studies for SARS-CoV-2 vaccine development.Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America · 2020
    Article
  4. 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

1 author.

Nicholas G EvansDepartment of Philosophy, University of Massachusetts Lowell, Lowell, Massachusetts, USA Nicholas_evans@uml.edu.ORCID 0000-0002-3330-0224

Funding

National Science Foundation 1734521
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Human infection challenge studies involving the intentional infection of research participants with a disease-causing agent have recently been suggested as a means to speed up the search for a vaccine for the ongoing coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) outbreak. Calls for challenge studies, however, rely on the expected social value of these studies. This value represents more than the simple possibility that a successful study will lead to the rapid development and dissemination of vaccines but also some expectation that this will actually occur. I show how this expectation may not be realistic in the current political moment and offer potential ways to make sure that any challenge trials that arise actually achieve their goals.

Indexed as

BetacoronavirusBiomedical ResearchClinical Trials as TopicCoronavirus InfectionsCOVID-19Ethics, ResearchHumansPandemicsPneumonia, ViralSARS-CoV-2Social ValuesViral VaccinesViral Vaccineschallenge studiescoronavirusCOVID-19global healthresearch ethics

Identifiers

PMID32669462
PMCPMC7364225

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.