↓ Skip to main content

Ethical challenges posed by clinical trials in preterm labor: a case study

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

Mentioned by

twitter
1 tweeter

Citations

dimensions_citation
3 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
28 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
Ethical challenges posed by clinical trials in preterm labor: a case study
Published in
Reproductive Health, December 2017
DOI 10.1186/s12978-017-0427-x
Pubmed ID
Authors

Sofía P. Salas

Abstract

This paper explores the ethical implications of a randomized double-blind clinical trial aimed to determine effectiveness and safety of an oxytocin receptor antagonist versus a betamimetic in the treatment of preterm labor, presented to a teaching hospital affiliated with a private university in Santiago, Chile. Though this trial protocol fulfills one of the conditions under which pregnant women could be enrolled in a clinical trial-the intervention has the potential to benefit the pregnant woman (by reducing adverse effects associated to salbutamol administration) and her fetus (if the new drug prolongs pregnancy)-there are some specific ethical issues raised. First, when to obtain consent is an important issue for clinical trials involving acute and unforeseen conditions that affect pregnant woman, e.g. preterm labor. Second, research must address the risk/benefit ratio for these two interdependent individuals, providing a good prospect of low risk and adequate benefit for both of them. Thirdly, specifically when a study is sponsored by a high-income country and conducted in a low- or middle-income country, decisions regarding ancillary care provisions for research participants should be made in advance. Lastly, researchers must consider the requirements for paternal consent based on cultural contexts.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 tweeter 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 28 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 28 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Bachelor 4 14%
Student > Master 3 11%
Researcher 3 11%
Other 2 7%
Student > Postgraduate 2 7%
Other 2 7%
Unknown 12 43%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 7 25%
Nursing and Health Professions 2 7%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 1 4%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 1 4%
Chemical Engineering 1 4%
Other 4 14%
Unknown 12 43%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. 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 04 January 2018.
All research outputs
#10,971,884
of 12,381,422 outputs
Outputs from Reproductive Health
#738
of 774 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#292,889
of 351,960 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Reproductive Health
#73
of 78 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 12,381,422 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 774 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 8.4. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
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 351,960 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 78 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.