ReviewJournal of clinical and translational science2022
Reviewing fair subject selection considerations for the unique case of post sequelae COVID-19 translational studies.
Review in Journal of clinical and translational science, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 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
5 citing papers in PubMed.
- The next phase in Long COVID research: addressing the ethical challenges in trials of disease-modifying treatments.EClinicalMedicine · 2026Review
- Quality of life among individuals with long COVID symptoms in Indonesia at four points of recovery.Discover mental health · 2026Article
- The Development and Initial Validation of the Memorial Symptom Assessment Scale-Long COVID (MSAS-LC): A Promising Tool for Measuring Long COVID.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2025Article
- The health impact of long COVID: a cross-sectional examination of health-related quality of life, disability, and health status among individuals with self-reported post-acute sequelae of SARS CoV-2 infection at various points of recovery.Journal of patient-reported outcomes · 2023Article
- Laying the groundwork to make diversity, equity, and inclusion front and center in clinical and translational research.Journal of clinical and translational science · 2023Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Fair inclusion of research subjects is necessary to ensure that post-acute sequelae COVID-19 (PASC) research results benefit all members of society. Scientists should conduct research on a broad sample of individuals who represent clinically relevant factors influencing a disease. Without demographic diversity and sociological and environmental variability, research outputs are less likely to apply to different populations and would thus increase health disparities. The goal of this narrative literature review and ethical analysis is to apply fair selection criteria to PASC research studies. We briefly highlight the importance of fair subject selection in translational research and then identify features of PASC, as well as PASC research, that hinder fair inclusion of research participants. We will demonstrate that determining an adequate and representative sample is not simply a matter of ensuring greater diversity; rather, fairness requires a broader evaluation of risks, burdens, and benefits specific to underrepresented populations. We provide recommendations to ensure fair subject selection in PASC research and promote translation toward positive health outcomes for all individuals, including the most vulnerable.
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.