Evidence map›Paper›PMID 32840831›Full record

ArticleJournal of bioethical inquiry2020

Applying a Precautionary Approach to Mobile Contact Tracing for COVID-19: The Value of Reversibility.

Niels Nijsingh, Anne van Bergen, Verina Wild

Erratum issuedAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of bioethical inquiry, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. An erratum has been issued. Cited by 6 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
6citing 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

6 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Review
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

3 authors.

Niels NijsinghInstitute for Ethics, History and Theory of Medicine, Ludwig Maximilians Universität, Lessingstrasse 2, 80336, München, Germany. nielsnijsingh@posteo.net.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-5698-3566
Anne van BergenInstitute for Ethics, History and Theory of Medicine, Ludwig Maximilians Universität, Lessingstrasse 2, 80336, München, Germany.
Verina WildInstitute for Ethics, History and Theory of Medicine, Ludwig Maximilians Universität, Lessingstrasse 2, 80336, München, Germany.

Funding

Bundesministerium für Bildung und Forschung (DE) 01GP1791
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The COVID-19 pandemic presents unprecedented challenges to public health decision-making. Specifically, the lack of evidence and the urgency with which a response is called for, raise the ethical challenge of assessing how much (and what kind of) evidence is required for the justification of interventions in response to the various threats we face. Here we discuss the intervention of introducing technology that aims to trace and alert contacts of infected persons-contact tracing (CT) technology. Determining whether such an intervention is proportional is complicated by complex trade-offs and feedback loops. We suggest that the resulting uncertainties necessitate a precautionary approach. On the one hand, precautionary reasons support CT technology as a means to contribute to the prevention of harms caused by alternative interventions, or COVID-19 itself. On the other hand, however, both the extent to which such technology itself present risks of serious harm, as well as its effectiveness, remain unclear. We therefore argue that a precautionary approach should put reversibility of CT technology at the forefront. We outline several practical implications.

Indexed as

Mobile ApplicationsContact TracingCOVID-19HumansPandemicsPublic HealthRisk AssessmentSARS-CoV-2UncertaintyInfectious diseasemHealthPublic health ethicsRisk, Precautionary principle, PandemicUncertainty

Identifiers

PMID32840831
PMCPMC7445727

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.