ArticleJournal of evaluation in clinical practice2022
The politics of the surgical mask: Challenging the biomedical episteme during a pandemic.
Article in Journal of evaluation in clinical practice, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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.
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.
Who cites it
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- The politics of the surgical mask: Challenging the biomedical episteme during a pandemic.Journal of evaluation in clinical practice · 2022Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
1 author.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
COVID-19 has seen politicians use a selective 'science' to justify restrictions on mobility and association, to mandate the wearing of face masks, and to close public infrastructure. There seems to be no role for health humanities scholars as yet, but perhaps there should be. This paper considers the fate of a health humanities article on surgical mask use that was published in a biomedical journal in 2016. This article, which did not operate from within the biomedical episteme but which was in conversation with the episteme, was misappropriated on both sides of the political spectrum to justify personal beliefs around mask use in the pandemic. This mistaken misappropriation is not only evidence of the utility of the common ground shared between biomedicine and the health humanities, it is also evidence of the possibilities inherent in a future interdisciplinary involving biomedicine and the health humanities.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.