↓ Skip to main content

Protected to death: systematic exclusion of pregnant women from Ebola virus disease trials

Overview of attention for article published in Reproductive Health, December 2017
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 5% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • Among the highest-scoring outputs from this source (#13 of 1,370)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (98th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (97th percentile)

Mentioned by

news
13 news outlets
blogs
3 blogs
policy
1 policy source
twitter
25 tweeters

Citations

dimensions_citation
56 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
127 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Protected to death: systematic exclusion of pregnant women from Ebola virus disease trials
Published in
Reproductive Health, December 2017
DOI 10.1186/s12978-017-0430-2
Pubmed ID
Authors

Melba F. Gomes, Vânia de la Fuente-Núñez, Abha Saxena, Annette C. Kuesel

Abstract

For 30 years, women have sought equal opportunity to be included in trials so that drugs are equitably studied in women as well as men; regulatory guidelines have changed accordingly. Pregnant women, however, continue to be excluded from trials for non-obstetric conditions, though they have been included for trials of life-threatening diseases because prospects for maternal survival outweighed potential fetal risks. Ebola virus disease is a life-threatening infection without approved treatments or vaccines. Previous Ebola virus (EBOV) outbreak data showed 89-93% maternal and 100% fetal/neonatal mortality. Early in the 2013-2016 EBOV epidemic, an expert panel pointed to these high mortality rates and the need to prioritize and preferentially allocate unregistered interventions in favor of pregnant women (and children). Despite these recommendations and multiple ethics committee requests for their inclusion on grounds of justice, equity, and medical need, pregnant women were excluded from all drug and vaccine trials in the affected countries, either without justification or on grounds of potential fetal harm. An opportunity to offer pregnant women the same access to potentially life-saving interventions as others, and to obtain data to inform their future use, was lost. Once again, pregnant women were denied autonomy and their right to decide. We recommend that, without clear justification for exclusion, pregnant women are included in clinical trials for EBOV and other life-threatening conditions, with lay language on risks and benefits in information documents, so that pregnant women can make their own decision to participate. Their automatic exclusion from trials for other conditions should be questioned.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 25 tweeters who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 127 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 127 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 29 23%
Researcher 15 12%
Student > Bachelor 11 9%
Student > Ph. D. Student 11 9%
Other 8 6%
Other 16 13%
Unknown 37 29%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 30 24%
Social Sciences 14 11%
Nursing and Health Professions 8 6%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 6 5%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 5 4%
Other 20 16%
Unknown 44 35%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 151. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 25 January 2022.
All research outputs
#209,981
of 21,897,744 outputs
Outputs from Reproductive Health
#13
of 1,370 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#6,223
of 446,472 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Reproductive Health
#4
of 124 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 21,897,744 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 99th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,370 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 11.2. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 99% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 446,472 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 98% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 124 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 97% of its contemporaries.