Evidence map›Paper›PMID 42695535›Full record

ArticleEthics & human research

IRB Policies on the Inclusion of Pregnant Women in Research.

Stephanie R Morain, Caleigh Propes, Ruth R Faden

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. Not yet cited in PubMed.

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

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

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.

Stephanie R MorainDracopoulos Rising Professor at the Berman Institute of Bioethics and in the Department of Health Policy & Management at the Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health.
Caleigh PropesDoctoral candidate at the Berman Institute of Bioethics and the Department of Health Policy & Management at the Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health.
Ruth R FadenPhilip Franklin Wagley Professor of Biomedical Ethics at the Berman Institute of Bioethics and in the Department of Health Policy & Management at the Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health.

Funding

Dracopoulos Rising Professorship in Bioethics
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Pregnant women have historically been excluded from clinical research, denying pregnant women the benefits of the societal investment in biomedical research and potential direct benefits from research participation. National and international guidance documents have called upon institutional review boards (IRBs) to institute policies to establish the expectation for inclusion of pregnant women in clinical research and require justification when pregnant women are excluded. However, only limited evidence exists regarding the extent to which IRBs have adopted policies consistent with these recommendations. We reviewed IRB policies and related guidance documents from the top 50 research institutions in the United States and the two largest independent IRBs. Four academic and one independent IRB included language that reinforced the view that pregnant women should not be included in research. Conversely, eight academic institutions included language that expressly fostered a culture of inclusion, and five academic institutions included language describing a requirement to justify decisions to exclude pregnant women. Neither independent IRB required justification for exclusion. While some institutions have implemented changes to advance the goal of ethical inclusion, considerable gaps remain between widely endorsed recommendations that IRBs contribute to facilitating appropriate inclusion of pregnant women in research and on-the-ground IRB policies.

Indexed as

Biomedical ResearchEthics Committees, ResearchPatient SelectionPregnant PeopleResearch SubjectsFemaleHumansPregnancyUnited Statesclinical researchfetal safetyfetuseshuman research ethicsinstitutional review boards (IRBs)pregnant women

Identifiers

PMID42695535
PMCPMC13543758

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.