ArticlePLoS neglected tropical diseases2026
Ethical considerations in decentralizing antivenom treatment in indigenous territories of the Brazilian Amazonia.
Article in PLoS neglected tropical diseases, 2026. 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
18 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Snakebite envenoming disproportionately affects Indigenous populations in the Brazilian Amazon, where centralized healthcare systems limit timely access to antivenom. The recently implemented SAVING Program has decentralized antivenom delivery to Indigenous primary healthcare facilities, improving access and clinical outcomes. This article examines the ethical considerations encountered and the approaches adopted to address these challenges. Using the WHO/TDR framework for ethics in implementation research as a starting point, we continuously adapted to ethical issues arising during the planning, implementation, and dissemination of the program. The analysis was informed by focus groups and stakeholder discussions involving Indigenous leaders, patients, healthcare professionals, health managers, policymakers, and representatives of Indigenous governance structures. Key themes included community and stakeholder responsiveness, informed consent, balancing risks and benefits, culturally appropriate standards of care, data governance, sustainability, and benefit sharing. Decentralizing antivenom delivery can improve equitable access to lifesaving treatment while strengthening Indigenous health systems. To date, the program has demonstrated the feasibility of building sustainable partnerships with Indigenous communities, enhancing acceptance and equity. The ethical lessons from the SAVING Program may provide practical guidance for implementing health innovations in Indigenous and other historically underserved communities.
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.