ArticleEthics & human research
IRB Policies on the Inclusion of Pregnant Women in Research.
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.
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.
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.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
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
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.