ReviewHaemophilia : the official journal of the World Federation of Hemophilia
The Value of Public Inquiries, Ethical Accountability, and Patient Voices: Reflections on the Infected Blood Inquiry.
Review in Haemophilia : the official journal of the World Federation of Hemophilia. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionThis article contributes to the continuing conversation in Haemophilia about the UK Infected Blood Inquiry (IBI). Discussion within the journal to date has largely foregrounded professional and technical perspectives.
aimThis article aims to bring back into view two elements central to the Inquiry-patient voice and the roles of law and ethics-and consider what this means for how the lessons of the IBI are interpreted in clinical and public discourse.
methodsThe article engages with published reflections and commentary to consider how responsibility has been framed, how consent has been understood, and what is at stake in the shaping of professional memory.
resultsThe article shows how narrowed framings of consent, appeals to clinical authority, and selective uses of language risk marginalising those infected and affected. It argues that such narratives continue to shape how responsibility is allocated and how the Inquiry will be remembered within professional discourse.
conclusionAccountability, transparency, and recognition must remain central as the implications of the Inquiry continue to unfold, and as processes of reconciliation begin.
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.