Evidence map›Paper›PMID 25354989›Full record

ReviewPaediatric drugs2015

Ethics of drug studies in the newborn.

Robert M Ward, Catherine M T Sherwin

Abstract readReview
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Review in Paediatric drugs, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 11 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
11citing 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

11 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Review
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Review
  7. Review
  8. Article
  9. Newborns still lack drug data to guide therapy.British journal of clinical pharmacology · 2016
    Article
  10. Review
  11. 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.

Robert M WardDivision of Neonatology, Department of Pediatrics, University of Utah, 295 Chipeta Way, Salt Lake City, UT, 84108, USA, robert.ward@hsc.utah.edu.
Catherine M T Sherwin

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Drug studies in developing pediatric patients, especially newborns, create many ethical challenges that can be analyzed in terms of respect for persons, justice, and beneficence/maleficence as outlined in the Belmont Report. This report describes some of the ethical challenges in conducting drug studies in pediatric patients that must be considered when planning studies and offers some solutions to meet those challenges. Methods of optimal study design should be utilized to limit the number of patients and the number of blood samples. Parental permission should be obtained with equipoise, although the parents of a sick newborn may feel an internal pressure for their child to participate in a study of a new and potentially superior therapy. If appropriate to the study, consent before labor and delivery when parents are less stressed is optimal. It may be difficult or impossible to know all the risks and benefits accompanying studies in newborns due to the limited number of randomized controlled studies in this population. Many more carefully designed, randomized controlled studies of drugs are needed to address the therapeutic needs of the developing pediatric population. For sick newborns cared for in the neonatal intensive care unit (NICU), those studies should be better focused on the drugs used daily in their cares.

Indexed as

Drug-Related Side Effects and Adverse ReactionsClinical Trials as TopicHumansInfant, NewbornIntensive Care Units, NeonatalParental ConsentPediatrics

Identifiers

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.