Do U.S. regulations allow more than minor increase over minimal risk pediatric research? Should they?

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

5 citing papers in PubMed.

1. The ethical justification for inclusion of neonates in pragmatic randomized clinical trials for emergency newborn care.BMC pediatrics · 2019
   Article
2. Examining the Social Benefits Principle in Research with Human Participants.Health care analysis : HCA : journal of health philosophy and policy · 2018
   Article
3. Defining the Boundaries of a Right to Adequate Protection: A New Lens on Pediatric Research Ethics.The Journal of medicine and philosophy · 2017
   Article
4. Body matters: rethinking the ethical acceptability of non-beneficial clinical research with children.Medicine, health care, and philosophy · 2015
   Article
5. Non-beneficial pediatric research: individual and social interests.Medicine, health care, and philosophy · 2015
   Article

Corrections and comments

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

Authors and funding

1 author.

Funding

Abstract

PubMed holds no abstract for this paper.

Indexed as