Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38510356›Full record

ReviewFrontiers in public health2024

The ethics of clinical research in the era of COVID-19.

Juliana N Vitti, Robert Vitti, Karen Chu, Scott Mellis

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Frontiers in public health, 2024. 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
–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

1 citing paper in PubMed.

  1. Article
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

4 authors.

Juliana N VittiBoston University, Boston, MA, United States.
Robert VittiRegeneron Pharmaceuticals Inc., Tarrytown, NY, United States.
Karen ChuRegeneron Pharmaceuticals Inc., Tarrytown, NY, United States.
Scott MellisRegeneron Pharmaceuticals Inc., Tarrytown, NY, United States.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

There is an urgent need for increased understanding of COVID-19 and strategies for its prevention, treatment, and mitigation. All participants in the research enterprise, including institutional review boards, have an ethical duty to protect participants and ensure that the benefits gained from such research do not conflict with the core principles that guided researchers prior to the pandemic. In this review, we discuss the ethical issues surrounding initiation and conduct of clinical trials, focusing on novel COVID-19 therapeutic, vaccine, or biospecimen research, using the principles of autonomy, beneficence, and justice. We discuss strategies to manage the practical challenges associated with the conduct of clinical trials, with an emphasis on maintaining the rights and welfare of research participants.

Indexed as

COVID-19COVID-19 VaccinesEthics Committees, ResearchHumansCOVID-19 Vaccinesbiospecimensclinical trial conductCOVID-19 therapeuticsCOVID-19 vaccinesethics – clinical

Identifiers

PMID38510356
PMCPMC10950982

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.