Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34099541›Full record

ArticleJournal of medical ethics2022

Do coronavirus vaccine challenge trials have a distinctive generalisability problem?

Nir Eyal, Tobias Gerhard

Open access · greenAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of medical ethics, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
3citing papers in PubMed
0.4field-weighted citation impact, top 37% of its field
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

3 citing papers in PubMed, 6 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. A new day for human challenge trials?Trends in molecular medicine · 2022
    Article
  3. 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 at 1 institution in 1 country.

Nir EyalCenter for Population-Level Bioethics, Department of Philosophy (SAS) and Department of HBSP (SPH), Rutgers University, New Brunswick, New Jersey, USA nir.eyal@rutgers.edu.ORCID 0000-0003-1056-6609
Tobias GerhardCenter for Pharmacoepidemiology and Treatment Science and Ernest Mario School of Pharmacy, Rutgers University, New Brunswick, New Jersey, USA.
Rutgers, The State University of New Jersey · US

Funding

HIV cure studies: risk, risk perception, and ethicsR01AI114617 · NIAID · RUTGERS BIOMEDICAL/HEALTH SCIENCES-RBHS · PI EYAL, NIR · 2015 to 2018
$3.2M
HIV cure studies: risk, risk perception, and ethicsR56AI114617 · NIAID · HARVARD MEDICAL SCHOOL · PI EYAL, NIR · 2014 to 2014
$528k
NIAID NIH HHS R01 AI114617NIAID NIH HHS R56 AI114617
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Notwithstanding the success of conventional field trials for vaccines against COVID-19, human challenge trials (HCTs) that could obtain more information about these and about other vaccines and further strategies against it are about to start in the UK. One critique of COVID-19 HCTs is their distinct paucity of information on crucial population groups. For safety reasons, these HCTs will exclude candidate participants of advanced age or with comorbidities that worsen COVID-19, yet a vaccine should (perhaps especially) protect such populations. We turn this cliché on its head. The truth is that either an HCT or a field trial has intrinsic generalisability limitations, that an HCT can expedite protection of high-risk participants even without challenging them with the virus, and that an important route to obtaining results generalisable to high-risk groups under either strategy is facilitated by HCTs.

Indexed as

COVID-19VaccinesCOVID-19 VaccinesHumansSARS-CoV-2COVID-19 VaccinesVaccinesbiostatisticsclinical trialsCOVID-19ethicsresearch ethics

Identifiers

PMID34099541
PMCPMC10013549
OpenAlexW3171332185

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceTDM
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.