ArticleJournal of healthcare, science and the humanities2018
Unethical US Government-Funded Cervical Screening Study in India: US Freedom of Information Act Disclosures.
Article in Journal of healthcare, science and the humanities, 2018. 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.
- WHO should adjust its global strategy for cervical cancer prevention.BMJ global health · 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
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Documents obtained through the US Freedom of Information Act show that, in 1997, the US National Cancer Institute (NCI) funded an 18-year randomized controlled trial in Mumbai that used mortality endpoints to compare a discredited cervical screening test to no screening. The Mumbai trial required Indian and global health leaders to assume "no screening" would remain "standard care" throughout India for the duration of the trial, and thereby delayed the implementation of routine cervical screening among the general population of India for 18 years. During those 18 years, more than one million women died from cervical cancer in India, while Pap screening became "standard care" in other developing countries. Incorrect beliefs that Pap screening is not feasible in developing countries provide false justification for opportunity costs associated with the Mumbai trial and hinder cervical cancer prevention efforts in developing countries, where 90% of global cervical cancer deaths occur. Those incorrect beliefs also undermine World Health Organization policy guidelines, which should be corrected to acknowledge that good-quality Pap screening can be implemented in developing countries with reasonable investment. Tata Memorial Hospital and the US Office for Human Research Protections (OHRP) determined the Mumbai trial was unethical. That determination has been effectively covered up by false and misleading statements from US medical leaders. All surviving Mumbai trial participants, from both intervention and control arms, should finally receive good-quality cervical screening tests. NCI leaders should accept OHRP determinations, acknowledge the Mumbai trial was unethical, and apologize to trial participants.
Indexed as
Identifiers
36818400PMC9930483What 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.