Evidence map›Paper›PMID 37398480›Full record

ArticlemedRxiv : the preprint server for health sciences2023

Structured Ethical Review for Wastewater-Based Testing.

Devin A Bowes, Amanda Darling, Erin M Driver, Devrim Kaya, Rasha Maal-Bared, Lisa M Lee, Kenneth Goodman, Sangeet Adhikari, Srijan Aggarwal, Aaron Bivins and 13 more

Abstract readPreprint
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in medRxiv : the preprint server for health sciences, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing 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

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

23 authors.

Devin A BowesBiodesign Center for Environmental Health Engineering, The Biodesign Institute, Arizona State University, 1001 S. McAllister Ave, Tempe, AZ, 85287.
Amanda DarlingDepartment of Civil and Environmental Engineering, Virginia Tech, 1145 Perry Street; 415 Durham Hall; Blacksburg, VA 24061.
Erin M DriverBiodesign Center for Environmental Health Engineering, The Biodesign Institute, Arizona State University, 1001 S. McAllister Ave, Tempe, AZ, 85287.
Devrim KayaSchool of Chemical, Biological, and Environmental Engineering, Oregon State University, 105 26th St, Corvallis, Oregon 97331.
Rasha Maal-BaredQuality Assurance and Environment, EPCOR Water Services Inc., EPCOR Tower, 2000-10423 101 Street NW, Edmonton, Alberta, CA.
Lisa M LeeDepartment of Population Health Sciences and Division of Scholarly Integrity and Research Compliance, Virginia Tech, 300 Turner St. NW, Suite 4120 (0497), Blacksburg, VA 24061.
Kenneth GoodmanInstitute for Bioethics and Health Policy, Miller School of Medicine, University of Miami, Miami, Florida.
Sangeet AdhikariBiodesign Center for Environmental Health Engineering, The Biodesign Institute, Arizona State University, 1001 S. McAllister Ave, Tempe, AZ, 85287.
Srijan AggarwalDepartment of Civil, Geological, and Environmental Engineering, University of Alaska Fairbanks, 1764 Tanana Loop, Fairbanks, AK 99775.
Aaron BivinsDepartment of Civil & Environmental Engineering, Louisiana State University, 3255 Patrick F. Taylor Hall, Baton Rouge, LA 70803.
Zuzana BohrerovaThe Ohio State University, Department of Civil, Environmental and Geodetic Engineering, 2070 Neil Avenue, 470 Hitchcock Hall, Columbus, OH 43210.
Alasdair CohenDepartment of Civil and Environmental Engineering, Virginia Tech, 1145 Perry Street; 415 Durham Hall; Blacksburg, VA 24061.
Claire DuvalletBiobot Analytics, Inc., 501 Massachusetts Avenue; Cambridge, MA; 02139.
Rasha A ElnimeiryPublic Health Outbreak Coordination, Informatics, Surveillance (PHOCIS) Office - Surveillance Section, Division of Disease Control and Health Statistics, Washington State Department of Health, 111 Israel Rd SE, Tumwater, WA 98501.
Justin M HutchisonDepartment of Civil, Environmental, and Architectural Engineering, University of Kansas, 1530 W 15th St, Lawrence, KS 66045.
Vikram KapoorSchool of Civil & Environmental Engineering, and Construction Management, University of Texas at San Antonio, 1 UTSA Circle, San Antonio, TX 78249.
Ishi KeenumComplex Microbial Systems Group, National Institute of Standards and Technology, 100 Bureau Dr, Gaithersburg, MD 20899.
Fangqiong LingDepartment of Energy, Environmental and Chemical Engineering, Washington University in St. Louis, One Brookings Drive, St. Louis, MO, 63130.
Deborah SillsDepartment of Civil and Environmental Engineering, Bucknell University, Lewisburg, PA, 17837.
Ananda TiwariDepartment of Food Hygiene and Environmental Health, Faculty of Veterinary Medicine, University of Helsinki, Agnes Sjöberginkatu 2 P.O. Box 66 FI 00014 Helsinki, Finland.
Peter VikeslandDepartment of Civil and Environmental Engineering, Virginia Tech, 1145 Perry Street; 415 Durham Hall; Blacksburg, VA 24061.
Ryan ZielsDepartment of Civil Engineering, the University of British Columbia, 6250 Applied Science Ln #2002, Vancouver, BC V6T 1Z4.
Cresten MansfeldtDepartment of Civil, Environmental, and Architectural Engineering, University of Colorado Boulder, UCB 428, Boulder, CO 80309.

Funding

Synthetic Chemical Biology CoreP20GM113117 · NIGMS · UNIVERSITY OF KANSAS LAWRENCE · PI OROZCO, ROBIN C. · 2016 to 2025
$23.9M
NIGMS NIH HHS P20 GM113117
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Wastewater-based testing (WBT) for SARS-CoV-2 has rapidly expanded over the past three years due to its ability to provide a comprehensive measurement of disease prevalence independent of clinical testing. The development and simultaneous application of the field blurred the boundary between measuring biomarkers for research activities and for pursuit of public health goals, both areas with well-established ethical frameworks. Currently, WBT practitioners do not employ a standardized ethical review process (or associated data management safeguards), introducing the potential for adverse outcomes for WBT professionals and community members. To address this deficiency, an interdisciplinary group developed a framework for a structured ethical review of WBT. The workshop employed a consensus approach to create this framework as a set of 11-questions derived from primarily public health guidance because of the common exemption of wastewater samples to human subject research considerations. This study retrospectively applied the set of questions to peer- reviewed published reports on SARS-CoV-2 monitoring campaigns covering the emergent phase of the pandemic from March 2020 to February 2022 (n=53). Overall, 43% of the responses to the questions were unable to be assessed because of lack of reported information. It is therefore hypothesized that a systematic framework would at a minimum improve the communication of key ethical considerations for the application of WBT. Consistent application of a standardized ethical review will also assist in developing an engaged practice of critically applying and updating approaches and techniques to reflect the concerns held by both those practicing and being monitored by WBT supported campaigns. Abstract Figure: Synopsis: Development of a structured ethical review facilitates retrospective analysis of published studies and drafted scenarios in the context of wastewater-based testing.

Identifiers

PMID37398480
PMCPMC10312843

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
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.