Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33594601›Full record

ArticleTheoretical medicine and bioethics2020

The concept of disease in the time of COVID-19.

Maria Cristina Amoretti, Elisabetta Lalumera

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Theoretical medicine and bioethics, 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. 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

2 authors.

Maria Cristina AmorettiDAFIST, Philosophy Section, University of Genoa, Via Balbi 4, 16126, Genoa, Italy. cristina.amoretti@unige.it.ORCID 0000-0003-2892-577X
Elisabetta LalumeraPhilHeaD, Research Center for Philosophy of Health and Disease, Genoa, Italy.ORCID 0000-0002-0345-0838

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Philosophers of medicine have formulated different accounts of the concept of disease. Which concept of disease one assumes has implications for what conditions count as diseases and, by extension, who may be regarded as having a disease (disease judgements) and for who may be accorded the social privileges and personal responsibilities associated with being sick (sickness judgements). In this article, we consider an ideal diagnostic test for coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) infection with respect to four groups of people-positive and asymptomatic; positive and symptomatic; negative; and untested-and show how different concepts of disease impact on the disease and sickness judgements for these groups. The suggestion is that sickness judgements and social measures akin to those experienced during the current COVID-19 outbreak presuppose a concept of disease containing social (risk of) harm as a component. We indicate the problems that arise when adopting this kind of disease concept beyond a state of emergency.

Indexed as

COVID-19COVID-19 TestingDiseasePhilosophy, MedicalAsymptomatic InfectionsHumansSick RoleConcept of diseaseCOVID-19HarmPandemicSick role

Identifiers

PMID33594601
PMCPMC7885979

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.