Evidence map›Paper›PMID 32900846›Full record

ArticleJournal of medical ethics2020

Uncertainty, error and informed consent to challenge trials of COVID-19 vaccines: response to Steel

Arnon Keren, Ori Lev

Abstract readComment
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of medical ethics, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing 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

1 citing paper in PubMed.

  1. Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

2 authors.

Arnon KerenDepartment of Philosophy, University of Haifa, Haifa, Israel akeren@research.haifa.ac.il.ORCID 0000-0002-4899-5495
Ori LevDepartment of Public Policy and Administration, Sapir Academic College, Hof Ashkelon, Israel.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

In a recent article, Steel, Buchak and Eyal (SBE) argue that current levels of uncertainty do not present a good reason to bar controlled human infection (CHI) trials of COVID-19 vaccines from proceeding. We argue that their argumentation for this conclusion is flawed. SBE are mistaken about the effects which different forms of ignorance have on participants' ability to provide valid informed consent. Decision-makers considering whether to allow such trials, we argue, must ultimately consider the likelihood that consent to participation in such trials under current conditions would be valid, and whether this likelihood is high enough to permit such trials. This is a question that SBE completely ignore. We conclude that there indeed are valid concerns about conducting CHI trials given the current state of knowledge about COVID-19, concerns which SBE fail to address.

Indexed as

COVID-19COVID-19 VaccinesInformed ConsentClinical Trials as TopicHumansPandemicsSARS-CoV-2UncertaintyCOVID-19 Vaccinesautonomyclinical trialsinformed consentresearch ethics

Identifiers

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.