Evidence map›Paper›PMID 31492178›Full record

ReviewPhilosophy, ethics, and humanities in medicine : PEHM2019

The moral imperative to approve pregnant women's participation in randomized clinical trials for pregnancy and newborn complications.

Dan Kabonge Kaye

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Philosophy, ethics, and humanities in medicine : PEHM, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 19 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
19citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–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

19 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Review
  7. Article
  8. Nanomedicine for Maternal and Fetal Health.Small (Weinheim an der Bergstrasse, Germany) · 2024
    Review
  9. Article
  10. Review
  11. For better care we need better data: towards a national obstetrics registry.American journal of obstetrics & gynecology MFM · 2023
    Review
  12. Improving Development of Drug Treatments for Pregnant Women and the Fetus.Therapeutic innovation & regulatory science · 2022
    Review
  13. Review
  14. Article
  15. Review
  16. Article
  17. Review
  18. Review
  19. Dancing During Labor: Are Women Down to Boogie?Journal of patient-centered research and reviews · 2020
    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

1 author.

Dan Kabonge KayeCollege of Health Sciences, Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Makerere University, P.O. Box 7072, Kampala, Uganda. dankkaye@yahoo.com.

Funding

Fogarty African Bioethics Post-Doctoral Training ProgramD43TW010512 · FIC · JOHNS HOPKINS UNIVERSITY · PI Joseph Ali, NANCY E KASS · 2017 to 2026
$2.2M
FIC NIH HHS D43 TW010512
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundThere is longstanding consensus on the need to include pregnant women in research. The goal of clinical research is to find highly regulated, carefully controlled, morally responsible ways to generate evidence about how to effectively and safely prevent illness or treat sick people. This manuscripts present a conceptual analysis of the ethicality of clinical trials in 3 scenarios: where the pregnant is involved in clinical trials as a participant during pregnancy for data that addresses pregnancy complications, where the pregnant woman consents to clinical trial participation for an unborn baby that has complications, to generate data on complications at this stage of life, and where the mother may consent for participation of their newborn child in clinical trials.

methodsConceptual analysis.

findingsInvestigators often choose to exclude pregnant women and newborns from research, even where there is possibility for them to benefit from the study intervention. Objections include vulnerability of pregnant women, altered pharmacokinetics and risk of adverse effects, with a need to balance potential maternal and fetal risks and benefits of research participation. While the objections may be valid, not performing research magnifies what should be a carefully controlled risk during research, pushing this risk into the clinical setting, and subsequently posing a challenge to clinicians who are faced with making treatment decisions for pregnant patients with limited evidence of efficacy and safety. The potential benefits of fair inclusion in clinical trials outweigh the potential risks.

conclusionResearch involving pregnant women is necessary to provide women with effective treatment during pregnancy, to promote fetal safety (such as by avoiding the clinical use of drugs that may be harmful to the developing fetus), and to reduce avoidable harm from suboptimal care (such as from underdosing) and to provide pregnant women, their fetuses and newborns (with access to potential benefits of research participation).

Indexed as

MoralsPregnancy ComplicationsRandomized Controlled Trials as TopicFemaleHumansPatient SelectionPregnancyClinical researchClinical trialsDoctrine of double effectFair inclusionMoral imperativePregnancy

Identifiers

PMID31492178
PMCPMC6731584

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.