Evidence map›Paper›PMID 37308280›Full record

ArticleJournal of medical ethics2025

Disclosure and consent: ensuring the ethical provision of information regarding childbirth.

Kelly Irvine, Rebecca Ch Brown, Julian Savulescu

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of medical ethics, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
3citing 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

3 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Observational
  2. Article
  3. 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

3 authors.

Kelly IrvineUniversity of Melbourne VCCC, Parkville, Victoria, Australia.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-3476-1759
Rebecca Ch BrownOxford Uehiro Centre for Practical Ethics, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-8023-1092
Julian SavulescuFaculty of Philosophy, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK julian.savulescu@philosophy.ox.ac.uk.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-1691-6403

Funding

Wellcome Trust
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Ethical medical care of pregnant women in Australia should include the real provision of information regarding the risks and benefits of vaginal birth. Routinely obtaining consent for the different ways in which childbirth is commonly intervened on and the assistance involved (such as midwife-led care or a planned caesarean section) and providing sufficient information for women to evaluate the harms and benefits of the care on offer, would not only enable the empowerment of women but would align with the current standard of care as established by Rogers v Whittaker.

Indexed as

Delivery, ObstetricDisclosureInformed ConsentParturitionPregnant PeopleAustraliaFemaleHumansPregnancyChildDecision MakingEthics- MedicalInformed ConsentWomen

Identifiers

PMID37308280
PMCPMC12322403

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.