Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33864168›Full record

ArticleHistory and philosophy of the life sciences2021

On evidence fiascos and judgments in COVID-19 policy.

Saana Jukola, Stefano Canali

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in History and philosophy of the life sciences, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing 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

2 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Fast Methods for Drug Approval: Research Perspectives for Pandemic Preparedness.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2023
    Article
  2. 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.

Saana JukolaInstitute for Medical Humanities, Universitätsklinikum Bonn, Bonn, Germany.
Stefano CanaliDepartment of Electronics, Information and Bioengineering, Politecnico Di Milano, Milan, Italy. stefano.canali@polimi.it.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-5948-3874

Funding

Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft DFG Research group 2448, project "The Critique of Evidence-based Medicine and the Diversification of Medical Evidence Practices"
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Calls for evidence-based approaches to COVID-19 have sparked up discussions on the use of evidence for policy. In this note, we expand these discussions: while the debate has mostly focused on the types of evidence to be used for policy, we argue that the assessment of judgments involved in data practices and evidence production should play a central role in evaluating policy.

Indexed as

JudgmentPolicyCommunicable Disease ControlCOVID-19Evidence-Based MedicineHumansSARS-CoV-2COVID-19 pandemicEvidence-based medicinePhilosophy of medicine

Identifiers

PMID33864168
PMCPMC8051544

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.