Evidence map›Paper›PMID 16790737›Full record

ReviewArchives of disease in childhood. Fetal and neonatal edition2006

The future of neonatal therapeutic trials.

T Stephenson, H Budge

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Archives of disease in childhood. Fetal and neonatal edition, 2006. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

2 authors.

T StephensonCentre for Reproduction and Early Life, Academic Division of Child Health, School of Human Development, University of Nottingham, E Floor, East Block, University Hospital, Nottingham NG7 2UH, UK. Terence.Stephenson@nottingham.ac.uk
H Budge

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Neonatology has undoubtedly benefited from clinical trials. Nevertheless, more treatments based on inadequate experimental evidence are given than those that are supported by a validated evidence base. Clinicians seeking the basis for their current and future clinical practice are faced with challenges in the shadow of recent UK legislation and government recommendations. All patients must be protected from inappropriate research, but the benefits of regulations must be appropriately balanced with those of properly conducted clinical trials. It is ethically difficult both to persist with treatments of unproven benefit and unknown harm and to deny infants potentially valuable therapies. It is important that trials are conducted within the new legislative framework, but their future may rest with innovative solutions and the determination of all involved in the process.

Indexed as

Biomedical ResearchClinical Trials as TopicHumansInfant, NewbornNeonatologyUnited Kingdom

Identifiers

PMID16790737
PMCPMC2672739

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.