Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34797183›Full record

ArticleExpert review of anti-infective therapy2022

Ethical challenges of prospective clinical trials during the COVID-19 pandemic.

Madison S McCarthy, Matthew W McCarthy

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Expert review of anti-infective therapy, 2022. 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. 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.

Madison S McCarthyDepartment of Biology, Brown University, Providence, Rhode Island, USA.
Matthew W McCarthyWeill Cornell Medical College, Division of General Internal Medicine, New York-Presbyterian Hospital, New York, NY, USA.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

introductionThe COVID-19 pandemic has created an unprecedented opportunity to reimagine clinical research. While much has been written about the challenges associated with generating real-world evidence during the COVID-19 pandemic, comparatively little attention has been paid to the ethical challenges facing patients, clinicians, researchers, and regulatory bodies. AREAS COVERED: In this manuscript, we examine these challenges through the lens of informed consent and explore how the consenting process changes as our understanding of the disease is altered. EXPERT OPINION: We also suggest ways to limit these ethical hurdles through the use of embedded pragmatic clinical trials, which generate real-world data without the limitations associated with observational trials or the resources and lack of generalizability that are obstacles to conducting conventional randomized clinical trials. We argue that clinical research must become more nimble, and must include embedded researchers to ensure that relevant questions and ethical issues are properly addressed.

Indexed as

COVID-19PandemicsHumansInformed ConsentProspective StudiescoronavirusCOVIDembedded pragmatic clinical trialinformed consentpandemic

Identifiers

PMID34797183
PMCPMC8631693

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.