Evidence map›Paper›PMID 41474462›Full record

ArticleEthics & human research

Policies for the Inclusion of Pregnant Women in Research: Results from an International and a US Study.

Anne Drapkin Lyerly, Renee Muthakana, Aliyah Webster, Jason Lee, Stephanie Moss, Madeleine Fairey, Allyson Riddle, Min Shi, David B Resnik

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Ethics & human research. 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. 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

9 authors.

Anne Drapkin LyerlyProfessor of social medicine and a research professor of obstetrics and gynecology at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill.
Renee MuthakanaJD/MA student in the bioethics and science policy program at Duke University.
Aliyah WebsterPhD candidate in the Integrated Toxicology and Environmental Health Program at Duke University.
Jason LeeMaster's student in the program in applied ethics and policy at Duke University.
Stephanie MossMaster's student in the program in applied ethics and policy at Duke University.
Madeleine FaireyBiomedical engineering student at Universitat Pompeu Fabra, based in Barcelona.
Allyson RiddleScience educator at the East Harlem School.
Min ShiBiostatistician at the National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences, National Institutes of Health.
David B ResnikBioethicist at the National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences, National Institutes of Health.

Funding

Ethical, social, and legal issues in environmental health researchZIAES102646 · NIEHS · NATIONAL INSTITUTE OF ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH SCIENCES · PI RESNIK, DAVID · 2009 to 2025
$1.8M
Intramural NIH HHS ZIA ES102646Intramural Program of the National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences (NIEHS)National Institutes of Health (NIH)
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Leading medical organizations have called for advancement of pregnancy-specific research to reduce harmful evidence gaps. However, meeting this objective poses ethical, legal, and policy dilemmas for investigators, oversight committees, academic institutions, and sponsors. To better understand the extent to which policies may facilitate or hinder the inclusion of pregnant women in research, we conducted two studies: an international study of laws, regulations, and ethical guidelines from a diverse sample of 59 countries and a study of policies from 84 top-funded US research institutions. We found that most policies use risk-based criteria for determining whether pregnant women should be included in research. Among countries with inclusion policies for pregnant women, 76% had risk-based policies (i.e., inclusion is based on risks and benefits to the pregnant woman and/or fetus), 13% had inclusionary policies (i.e., pregnant women should or must be included in research unless there is a valid scientific or ethical reason for exclusion), and 11% had exclusionary policies (i.e., pregnant women should or must be excluded from research unless there is a valid scientific or ethical reason for inclusion). In the US study, 96% of institutions had risk-based policies, 3% had exclusionary policies, and 1% had inclusionary policies. We also found that many policies referred to pregnant women as vulnerable. To promote fair and responsible inclusion of pregnant women in research, academic institutions, sponsors, and oversight agencies should adopt and implement policies with inclusionary language and refrain from referring to pregnant women as vulnerable.

Indexed as

Biomedical ResearchPatient SelectionPregnant PeopleResearch SubjectsFemaleHumansInternationalityPregnancyUnited Statesfetushuman subjects researchinclusion in researchpolicypregnancyreproductionresearch ethicsriskwomen

Identifiers

PMID41474462
PMCPMC12933637

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceTDM
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.