ReviewPaediatric drugs2021
Deferred Consent in Neonatal Clinical Research: Why, When, How?
Review in Paediatric drugs, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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
6 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Pooled it
- Practical approaches for supporting informed consent in neonatal clinical trials.Acta paediatrica (Oslo, Norway : 1992) · 2024Review
- Parental perspectives about information and deferred versus two-stage consent in studies of neonatal asphyxia.Archives of disease in childhood. Fetal and neonatal edition · 2023Article
- Generalizability of the Necrotizing Enterocolitis Surgery Trial to the Target Population of Eligible Infants.The Journal of pediatrics · 2023Article
- Parental perceptions of informed consent in a study of tracheal intubations in neonatal intensive care.Frontiers in pediatrics · 2023Article
- Deferred Consent in Pediatric Drug Trials: Moving from Why to How.Paediatric drugs · 2021Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Deferred consent has gained traction in some countries as a possible adjunct to prospective consent for evaluating emergency therapies in the neonatal population. This form of consent has been shown to increase recruitment of acutely and critically unwell patients, potentially reduce parent decision-making burden, and provide more robust evidence for clinical treatments where equipoise exists. However, deferred consent raises complex ethical concerns and guidelines for its use vary across different jurisdictions. The views of all stakeholders, including neonatal providers and parents, are important in determining the appropriateness of deferred consent in high-risk patients. Deferred consent may be ethically justifiable for assessing various treatments, particularly those used in emergency medical management. We present a framework based on neonatal deferred consent trials that assess both non-drug and drug interventions, our experience conducting deferred consent neonatal studies in Australia, and the views of providers and parents on how to best implement deferred consent in the neonatal research setting.
Indexed as
Identifiers
34651279What 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.