Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39122401›Full record

ArticleBMJ open2024

Balancing key stakeholder priorities and ethical principles to design a trial comparing intervention or expectant management for early-onset selective fetal growth restriction in monochorionic twin pregnancy: FERN qualitative study.

Tracy Karen Mitchell, Mariana Popa, Richard Edmund Ashcroft, Smriti Prasad, Andrew Sharp, Christine Carnforth, Mark Turner, Asma Khalil, Natasha Fenwick, Shauna Leven and 2 more

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in BMJ open, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing 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

1 citing paper in PubMed.

  1. Feasibility and acceptability of randomized controlled trial of intervention vs expectant management for early-onset selective fetal growth restriction in monochorionic twin pregnancy.Ultrasound in obstetrics & gynecology : the official journal of the International Society of Ultrasound in Obstetrics and Gynecology · 2025
    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

12 authors.

Tracy Karen MitchellPublic Health, Policy and Systems, University of Liverpool, Liverpool, UK Tracy.Mitchell@Liverpool.ac.uk.ORCID 0000-0003-0014-8016
Mariana PopaPublic Health, Policy and Systems, University of Liverpool, Liverpool, UK.ORCID 0009-0006-9237-4094
Richard Edmund AshcroftSchool of Law, City University of London, London, UK.ORCID 0000-0001-6065-4717
Smriti PrasadFetal Medicine Unit, St George's University Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, London, UK.ORCID 0000-0003-2329-4470
Andrew SharpDepartment of Women's and Children's Health, University of Liverpool, Liverpool, UK.ORCID 0000-0003-3396-7464
Christine CarnforthClinical Directorate Professional Services, University of Liverpool, Liverpool, UK.
Mark TurnerDepartment of Women's and Children's Health, University of Liverpool, Liverpool, UK.ORCID 0000-0002-5299-8656
Asma KhalilFetal Medicine Unit, St George's University Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, London, UK.ORCID 0000-0003-2802-7670
Natasha FenwickResearch and Resources Officer, Twins Trust, London, Hampshire, UK.ORCID 0000-0002-3232-163X
Shauna LevenTwins Trust, Woking, Surrey, UK.
FERN study team
Kerry WoolfallPublic Health, Policy and Systems, University of Liverpool, Liverpool, UK.ORCID 0000-0002-5726-5304

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectivesAs part of the FERN feasibility study, this qualitative research aimed to explore parents' and clinicians' views on the acceptability, feasibility and design of a randomised controlled trial (RCT) of active intervention versus expectant management in monochorionic (MC) diamniotic twin pregnancies with early-onset (prior to 24 weeks) selective fetal growth restriction (sFGR). Interventions could include laser treatment or selective termination which could lead to the death or serious disability of one or both twins.

designQualitative semi-structured interviews with parents and clinicians. Data were analysed using reflexive thematic analysis and considered against the Principles of Biomedical Ethics. PARTICIPANTS AND

settingWe interviewed 19 UK parents experiencing (six mothers, two partners) or had recently experienced (eight mothers, three partners) early-onset sFGR in MC twin pregnancy and 14 specialist clinicians from the UK and Europe.

resultsParticipants viewed the proposed RCT as 'ethically murky' because they believed that the management of sFGR in MC twin pregnancy should be individualised according to the type and severity of sFGR. Clinicians prioritised the gestational age, size, decrease in growth velocity, access to the placental vessels and acceptability of intervention for parents. Discussions and decision-making about selective termination appeared to cause long-term harm (maleficence). The most important outcome for parents and clinicians was 'live birth'. For clinicians, this was the live birth of at least one twin. For parents, this meant the live birth of both twins, even if this meant that their babies had neurodevelopmental impairment or disabilities.

conclusionsAll three pregnancy management approaches for sFGR in MC twin pregnancy carry risks and benefits, and the ultimate goal for parents is to receive individualised care to achieve the best possible outcome for both twins. An RCT was not acceptable to parents or clinicians or seen as ethically appropriate. Alternative study designs should be considered to answer this important research question.

Indexed as

Fetal Growth RetardationPregnancy, TwinQualitative ResearchAdultFeasibility StudiesFemaleGestational AgeHumansInterviews as TopicMaleParentsPregnancyRandomized Controlled Trials as TopicResearch DesignUnited KingdomWatchful Waitingfetal medicinemedical ethicsobstetricsprenatal diagnosisqualitative researchsurgery

Identifiers

PMID39122401
PMCPMC11331883

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.