Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40125142›Full record

ReviewCureus2025

The Legality of Vitamin K Refusal in the United States.

Avrohom Levy, Shira Nabatian

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Cureus, 2025. 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. Review
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

2 authors.

Avrohom LevyPediatrics, Jersey Shore University Medical Center, Neptune, USA.
Shira NabatianAttorney, New York University, New York, USA.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Antivaccine rhetoric has been a major topic of discussion in politics, the news, and on social media platforms. As social media use has become a mainstay of communication, it has become increasingly difficult to differentiate between factual and non-factual information. People have become unsure of what to believe and fear vaccinating their children in case the horrors they see on social media are true. This antivaccine rhetoric has spread from just vaccines to essential prophylactic treatments such as Vitamin K administration in newborns. This is despite ample evidence showing that Vitamin K administration prevents fatal bleeding in newborns. There is also evidence that Vitamin K administration has minimal side effects, demonstrating that the benefits far outweigh the risks. Despite the lack of medical basis, an increasing number of parents are refusing Vitamin K for their newborns. This article explores parents' legal right to make medical decisions for their children, the scope of parental neglect, and whether refusing Vitamin K constitutes neglect from a medicolegal standpoint. It also provides recommendations on addressing this issue.

Indexed as

lawmedicolegalneonatologynewborn carepediatricspublic healthvaccine refusalvitamin kvitamin k deficiency bleedingvitamin k prophylaxis

Identifiers

PMID40125142
PMCPMC11929546

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.