Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36171611›Full record

ReviewInfectious diseases of poverty2022

Empowering local research ethics review of antibacterial mass administration research.

Nelson K Sewankambo, Paul Kutyabami

Open access · goldAbstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Infectious diseases of poverty, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing papers in PubMed
0.4field-weighted citation impact, top 36% 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

1 citing paper in PubMed, 2 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Review
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.

Nelson K SewankamboDepartment of Medicine, School of Medicine, College of Health Sciences, Makerere University, P. O. Box 7072, Kampala, Uganda. sewankam@infocom.co.ug.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-9362-053X
Paul KutyabamiDepartment of Pharmacy, School of Health Sciences, College of Health Sciences, Makerere University, P. O. Box 7072, Kampala, Uganda.
Makerere University · UG

Funding

SUSTAIN: Advancing Makerere University Masters of Health Sciences in BioethicsR25TW009730 · FIC · MAKERERE UNIVERSITY COLLEGE OF HEALTH SCIENCES · PI SEWANKAMBO, NELSON K · 2014 to 2024
$2.4M
Fogarty African Bioethics Post-Doctoral Training ProgramD43TW010512 · FIC · JOHNS HOPKINS UNIVERSITY · PI Joseph Ali, NANCY E KASS · 2017 to 2026
$2.2M
Makerere University International Bioethics Research Training ProgramD43TW010892 · FIC · MAKERERE UNIVERSITY COLLEGE OF HEALTH SCIENCES · PI SEWANKAMBO, NELSON K · 2019 to 2023
$1.2M
FIC NIH HHS D43 TW010892FIC NIH HHS R25 TW009730
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundRecent studies using mass drug administration (MDA) of antibiotics to entire communities have focused global attention on the unique ethical challenges of MDA of antibiotics in research and public health interventions. However, there is no specific guidance for Research Ethics Committees (RECs) or Institutional Review Boards (IRBs) to review such trials. We surveyed the literature to identify the unique ethical challenges and to strengthen the competencies of RECs or IRBs in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs) in their ethical reviews of these trials.

methodsWe employed a desk review. We searched PubMed, Web of Science, and Google Scholar, combining terms for "mass drug administration" with terms for "research ethics committees," "institutional review boards," and "ethics." We reviewed citations of search results to retrieve additional articles. Only articles published and indexed in the above databases up to 6 January 2022 in English were included. Abstracts (without full articles), books and articles that had exclusive veterinary and environmental focus were excluded. We synthesized the literature to identify particularly challenging ethical issues relevant to antibacterial MDA trials in LMICs.

resultsThe most challenging ethical issues can be categorised into four broad domains: determining the social value of MDA, assessing risks and benefits, engaging all stakeholders meaningfully, and study design-related ethical challenges. These four domains interact and impact each other. Together, they reveal the need for RECs/IRBs to review MDA studies through a broader lens than that of clinical trials per se. From our findings, we propose a framework to guide the RECs and IRBs in LMICs to perform the initial and continuing review of antibiotic MDA trials. We also recommend strengthening the competencies of LMIC RECs or IRBs through ongoing training and collaboration with RECs or IRBs from high-income countries.

conclusionsREC/IRB review of research using MDA of antibiotics plays a critical role in assuring the ethical conduct of MDA studies. Local RECs/IRBs should be empowered to review MDA studies comprehensively and competently in order to advance scientific knowledge about MDA and promote improved global health.

Indexed as

Ethics, ResearchMass Drug AdministrationAnti-Bacterial AgentsEthical ReviewPower, PsychologicalAnti-Bacterial AgentsAntibioticEmpowermentEthics ReviewEthics Review CommitteeGuidanceInstitutional Review BoardMass drug administrationTrials

Identifiers

PMID36171611
PMCPMC9516823
OpenAlexW4297539108

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.