ArticlePloS one2022
Experiences of sharing results of community based serosurvey with participants in a district of Maharashtra, India.
Article in PloS one, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Article
- Developing Requirements for a Standardized System to Return Individual Research Results Back to Study Participants: Narrative Review.Interactive journal of medical research · 2025Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
17 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
A growing number of organisations, including medical associations, recommend that research subjects should be given the option of being informed about the general outcome and results of the study. We recently completed a study involving nine serosurveys from 2018 to 2020 in five districts of India among three age groups (children 9 months to < 5 years; 5 to < 15 years of age, and women 15 to < 50 years of age before and after the measles and rubella (MR) vaccination campaigns). In Palghar district of Maharashtra all individuals in 30 selected clusters were enumerated, and 13 individuals per age group were randomly sampled. We established the procedures to return the results to the respondents for each stage of the survey. Of the 1,166 individuals selected for the measles and rubella serosurvey, 971 (83%) agreed to participate and were enrolled. Participants were informed that they will only be contacted if they test seronegative for measles and/or rubella antibodies. Overall, 140 individuals enrolled in the survey tested seronegative for IgG antibodies to measles and/or rubella viruses; were provided the reports and informed to seek medical advice. Upon follow up by phone, 10% (14) of the 140 participants reported to have been vaccinated. In this paper we discuss the procedures, experiences and considerations in returning results to participants in a community-based measles and rubella serosurvey. Although the lessons learned are specific to post measles-rubella vaccine campaign serosurvey in India, they might be helpful to those contemplating sharing results to participants of large scale survey settings.
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.