Wastewater-based testing (WBT) for SARS-CoV-2 has rapidly expanded over the past three years due to its ability to provide a comprehensive measurement of disease prevalence independent of clinical testing. The development and simultaneous application of WBT measured biomarkers for research activities and for the pursuit of public health goals, both areas with well-established ethical frameworks. Currently, WBT practitioners do not employ a standardized ethical review process, introducing the potential for adverse outcomes for WBT professionals and community members. To address this deficiency, an interdisciplinary workshop developed a framework for a structured ethical review of WBT. The workshop employed a consensus approach to create this framework as a set of 11 questions derived from primarily public health guidance. This study retrospectively applied these questions to SARS-CoV-2 monitoring programs covering the emergent phase of the pandemic (3/2020-2/2022 (n = 53)). Of note, 43% of answers highlight a lack of reported information to assess. Therefore, a systematic framework would at a minimum structure the communication of ethical considerations for applications of WBT. Consistent application of an ethical review will also assist in developing a practice of updating approaches and techniques to reflect the concerns held by both those practicing and those being monitored by WBT supported programs.
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 9. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 10 October 2024.
All research outputs
#4,749,791
of 29,282,182 outputs
Outputs from Environmental Science & Technology
#5,973
of 23,443 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#69,102
of 372,596 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Environmental Science & Technology
#51
of 255 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 29,282,182 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 83rd percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 23,443 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 18.3. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 74% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 372,596 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 81% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 255 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 79% of its contemporaries.
