Evidence map›Paper›PMID 29378652›Full record

ArticleTrials2018

Fair inclusion of pregnant women in clinical trials: an integrated scientific and ethical approach.

Rieke van der Graaf, Indira S E van der Zande, Hester M den Ruijter, Martijn A Oudijk, Johannes J M van Delden, Katrien Oude Rengerink, Rolf H H Groenwold

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Trials, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 58 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
58citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
10.3field-weighted citation impact, top 1% 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

58 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 122 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. An exploration of women's experience of taking part in a randomized controlled trial of a diagnostic test during pregnancy: A qualitative study.Health expectations : an international journal of public participation in health care and health policy · 2020
    Trial
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Review
  7. Review
  8. Review
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Review
  13. Review
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Review
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. 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

7 authors at 2 institutions in 2 countries.

Rieke van der GraafDepartment of Medical Humanities, Julius Center for Health Sciences and Primary Care, University Medical Center Utrecht, PO Box 85500, 3508 GA, Utrecht, The Netherlands.
Indira S E van der ZandeDepartment of Medical Humanities, Julius Center for Health Sciences and Primary Care, University Medical Center Utrecht, PO Box 85500, 3508 GA, Utrecht, The Netherlands. i.s.e.vanderzande@umcutrecht.nl.
Hester M den RuijterLaboratory of Experimental Cardiology, University Medical Center Utrecht, Utrecht, The Netherlands.
Martijn A OudijkDepartment of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, Academic Medical Center, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
Johannes J M van DeldenDepartment of Medical Humanities, Julius Center for Health Sciences and Primary Care, University Medical Center Utrecht, PO Box 85500, 3508 GA, Utrecht, The Netherlands.
Katrien Oude RengerinkJulius Center for Health Sciences and Primary Care, University Medical Center Utrecht, Utrecht, The Netherlands.
Rolf H H GroenwoldDepartment of Epidemiology, Julius Center for Health Sciences and Primary Care, University Medical Center Utrecht, Utrecht, The Netherlands.
University Medical Center Utrecht · NLAcademic Medical Center · NL

Funding

ZonMw 113105003
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundSince pregnant women are severely underrepresented in clinical research, many take the position that the exclusion of pregnant women from research must be justified unless there are compelling "scientific reasons" for their exclusion. However, it is questionable whether this approach renders research with pregnant women fair. This paper analyzes and evaluates when research with pregnant women can be considered as fair and what constitutes scientific reasons for exclusion.

methodsConceptual ethical and methodological analysis and evaluation of fair inclusion.

resultsFair inclusion of pregnant women means (1) that pregnant women who are eligible are not excluded solely for being pregnant and (2) that the research interests of pregnant women are prioritized, meaning that they ought to receive substantially more attention. Fairness does not imply that pregnant women should be included in virtually every research project, as including only a few pregnant women in a population consisting only of women will not help to determine the effectiveness and safety of a treatment in pregnant women. Separate trials in pregnant women may be preferable once we assume, or know, that effects of interventions in pregnant women differ from the effects in other subpopulations, or when we assume, or know, that there are no differences. In the latter case, it may be preferable to conduct post-marketing studies or establish registries. If there is no conclusive evidence indicating either differences or equivalence of effects between pregnant and non-pregnant women, yet it seems unlikely that major differences or exact equivalence exist, the inclusion of pregnant women should be sufficient. Depending on the research question, this boils down to representativeness in terms of the proportion of pregnant and non-pregnant women, or to oversampling pregnant women.

conclusionsFair inclusion of pregnant women in research implies that separate trials in pregnant women should be promoted. Inclusion of pregnant women has to be realized at the earliest phases of the research process. In addition to researchers and research ethics committees, scientific advisory councils, funders, drug regulatory agencies, pharmaceutical companies, journal editors and others have a joint responsibility to further develop the evidence base for drug use in pregnant women.

Indexed as

Research SubjectsClinical Trials as TopicEligibility DeterminationEthics Committees, ResearchFemaleHumansInformed ConsentPatient SafetyPatient SelectionPregnancyRisk AssessmentRisk FactorsCorrective justiceDrug trialsEvidence-based researchFair inclusionJustify exclusionOversamplingPhase III trialsPregnant womenResearch ethicsResearch methodology

Identifiers

PMID29378652
PMCPMC5789693
OpenAlexW2794654333

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.