ArticleBulletin of the World Health Organization2025
Ethical clinical trial design and differences in treatment effects.
Article in Bulletin of the World Health Organization, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Exercise as a Programmable Regulator of Mitophagy Sensitivity in Aging Muscle and Age-Related Disease.IUBMB life · 2026Review
- 5/6 Nephrectomy as an Experimental Model for Chronic Kidney Disease: New Vasoactive and Antioxidant Therapeutic Targets.Pharmaceuticals (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Review
- The federated trials approach; an opportunity for global collaboration in health emergencies.EClinicalMedicine · 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
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Many global clinical trials primarily estimate a single overall treatment effect. However, when treatment effects are likely to differ between populations, for example due to differences in the disease, population characteristics or health-care systems, this approach can lead to misleading conclusions and raise ethical concerns. Justice is compromised when research conducted in low-resourced countries benefits primarily or exclusively populations of wealthier countries. A clinical trial design and analysis that focuses on estimating a single treatment effect, assumed to apply to all participating populations, goes against the ethical principle of justice and the positions of the World Health Assembly. To address this issue, we suggest a methodological strategy based on hierarchical modelling. This approach enables researchers to estimate treatment effects that are valid for each participating population, while potentially retaining efficiency comparable to traditional pooled analysis, as we demonstrate in an example. When substantial between-population differences exist, it produces valid, region-specific results. Strategies such as this one, if adopted into the standards for global trials, would allow regulators, funders and other stakeholders to ensure that trials are designed to help preserve justice for all participant populations.
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.