ReviewSeminars in fetal & neonatal medicine2018
Neonatal research ethics after SUPPORT.
Review in Seminars in fetal & neonatal medicine, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Deferred Consent in Neonatal Clinical Research: Why, When, How?Paediatric drugs · 2021Review
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
The SUPPORT study (Study to Understand Prognoses and Preferences for Outcomes and Risks of Treatments), sponsored by the Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health and Human Development to evaluate different oxygen saturation targets for extremely premature babies, led to a national controversy that was surprisingly public, intense, and polarizing. This article describes the study design, the study outcomes, and the key issues. I conclude that the controversy was based on two different views of the clinical investigator. One, held by investigators themselves, is that investigators are primarily committed to the patient's well-being. The other sees the investigator as unable to disentangle his conflicting loyalties and as inevitably prioritizing the goals of research over the goals of patient care. I suggest that our current oversight systems overstate the risks of research and understate the risks of idiosyncratic practice variation. A better system would treat the relative risks of these two phenomena as comparable.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.