Evidence map›Paper›PMID 22607226›Full record

ReviewBritish journal of clinical pharmacology2012

Prescribing without evidence - pregnancy.

Simon H L Thomas, Laura M Yates

Open access · bronzeAbstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in British journal of clinical pharmacology, 2012. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 18 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
18citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
5.0field-weighted citation impact, top 5% of its field
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

18 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 52 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Obstetric Pharmacoethics: An ethical framework for obstetric pharmacology.European journal of obstetrics, gynecology, and reproductive biology · 2026
    Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Review
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Pharmacokinetics of drugs in pregnancy.Seminars in perinatology · 2015
    Review
  15. Article
  16. Basic obstetric pharmacology.Seminars in perinatology · 2014
    Review
  17. The science of prescribing.British journal of clinical pharmacology · 2012
    Article
  18. 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

2 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Simon H L ThomasUK Teratology Information Service, Newcastle upon Tyne Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, UK. simon.thomas@ncl.ac.uk
Laura M Yates
Newcastle University · GBNewcastle upon Tyne Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust · GB

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Prescribing of medicines during pregnancy is common, and for some groups of women is essential for maintaining maternal and therefore fetal health. Pregnant women and prescribers are rightly concerned, however, about the potential adverse fetal effects of medicines. These may include fetal death or stillbirth, congenital malformations, developmental impairment, neonatal effects or late carcinogenesis. It is therefore essential that the risks and benefits for mother and fetus are considered carefully before prescribing in pregnancy. This is often challenging because of the paucity of information available. To complicate the issue further, drug pharmacokinetics are commonly altered in pregnancy, potentially affecting optimal dosing as well as interpretation of plasma concentration measurements, with specific information on individual drugs seldom available. Most drugs cross the placenta, especially lipophilic drugs and those with low plasma protein binding. Active membrane transporters also have an important role in enhancing or preventing drug transfer, although this is not yet clearly understood. Animal studies have limited applicability to humans because of species-specific effects, and clinical trials in pregnancy are only undertaken in special circumstances. Prescribers therefore need to rely on observational studies of fetal outcomes following drug exposure in human pregnancy. These often involve limited numbers, and data are also subject to confounding and bias, making interpretation difficult. It therefore remains essential that appropriate mechanisms for systematic data collection, including congenital malformation registries, teratology information services, pregnancy registers and linked population registries, are maintained and enhanced to increase the amount and quality of information available.

Indexed as

Pregnant PeopleAdverse Drug Reaction Reporting SystemsDatabases, PharmaceuticalDrug PrescriptionsDrug-Related Side Effects and Adverse ReactionsFemaleFetusHumansPregnancyRegistries

Identifiers

PMID22607226
PMCPMC3477338
OpenAlexW2118283332

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.