ArticlePLoS neglected tropical diseases2025
Perceptions of a Buruli ulcer controlled human infection model: How, who, and why?
Article in PLoS neglected tropical diseases, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Accelerating vaccine research and development for skin neglected tropical diseases: A case for leishmaniasis, leprosy, and Buruli ulcer.PLoS neglected tropical diseases · 2026Review
- Harnessing controlled human infection models to accelerate vaccine development for neglected tropical diseases: Lessons from leishmaniasis.European journal of clinical investigation · 2026Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundInfection with Mycobacterium ulcerans causes slowly progressive skin lesions known as Buruli ulcer (BU). An M. ulcerans controlled human infection model (MuCHIM) is likely to accelerate our understanding of this otherwise neglected disease, and may be an efficient platform for testing vaccines and other interventions. The aim of this study was to understand perceptions of this model across a range of key stakeholders in an endemic Australian community setting.
methodsWe recruited young adults who live near an Australian BU endemic area but without a personal history of BU, clinicians involved in the management of BU, young adults with a personal history of a small, treated BU, and participants of any age with a demonstrated interest in public advocacy related to their personal BU lived experience. Participants reviewed an abridged version of the provisional protocol. A series of three focus groups were then conducted by video, and the transcribed text was analysed using reflexive thematic analysis to generate themes for exploration.
resultsParticipants universally valued the outcomes that MuCHIM might deliver. The predominant theme was that informed consent required fully transparent communication with potential participants regarding what their participation would involve, how it would impact their lives, and both the expected outcome and 'worst-case scenario'. They also offered actionable recommendations on how best to communicate the tension between the expected outcome and the 'worst-case scenario' of disease associated with delayed diagnosis and comorbidity, as typically portrayed by the media. Participants recommended including images and testimonials from people who have had BU to support the conditions for informed consent. Focus groups also gave a clear sense of who they believed would volunteer for this type of research.
conclusionsThis study offers valuable guidance regarding the content and presentation of information to inform potential participants, with focus group participants suggesting a multimodal approach of communication, including lived experience testimonials and clinical images of the expected outcome. This information will inform development of materials for enrolment to adequately communicate risks and expectations to potential study participants.
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.