Evidence map›Paper›PMID 21685147›Full record

ArticleJournal of medical ethics2012

Abortion decisions as inclusion and exclusion criteria in research involving pregnant women and fetuses.

Carson Strong

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of medical ethics, 2012. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing 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

1 citing paper in PubMed.

  1. Article
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

1 author.

Carson StrongDepartment of Medicine, University of Tennessee Health Science Center, 956 Court Avenue, Memphis TN 38163, USA. cstrong@uthsc.edu

Funding

Human Subjects Protections in Prenatal Gene Transfer ResearchR03HG005225 · NHGRI · UNIVERSITY OF TENNESSEE HEALTH SCI CTR · PI STRONG, CARSON MCCARTY · 2010 to 2011
$74k
NHGRI NIH HHS R03 HG 005225NHGRI NIH HHS R03 HG005225
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

From the perspective of investigators conducting research involving pregnant women and fetuses, a woman's decision about whether to have an abortion can sometimes be relevant to the suitability of the woman and fetus as research subjects. However, prominent ethicists disagree over whether it is permissible for a woman's decision about abortion to be an inclusion or exclusion criterion for participation in research. A widely held view is that fetuses to be aborted and fetuses to be carried to term should be treated equally as research subjects. Some hold that this principle implies that a woman's decision about whether to have an abortion should not be an inclusion or exclusion criterion. This paper identifies types of research in which investigators might want to have inclusion or exclusion criteria based on decisions about abortion. It examines the arguments for and against having the woman's decision about abortion included in such criteria. It is argued that there are types of research in which such criteria are ethically permissible.

Indexed as

Abortion, InducedEthics, ResearchAbortion, LegalEthics, MedicalFemaleFetusHumansMoralsPatient SelectionPregnancyPregnant PeopleWomen's Rights

Identifiers

PMID21685147
PMCPMC3241879

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceTDM
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.