Evidence map›Paper›PMID 41345937›Full record

ReviewBMC medical genomics2025

Prenatal therapies: a Points to Consider framework for responsible innovation.

Eric M Meslin, Caroline Kant, Sebastien Mazzuri, Bartha Maria Knoppers

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in BMC medical genomics, 2025. 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

4 authors.

Eric M MeslinUniversity of Toronto Dalla Lana School of Public Health, Toronto, Canada. emeslin1020@gmail.com.
Caroline KantEspeRare Foundation, Geneva, Switzerland.
Sebastien MazzuriEspeRare Foundation, Geneva, Switzerland.
Bartha Maria KnoppersMcGill University Centre of Genomics and Policy, Montreal, Canada.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Prenatal therapies represent an emerging frontier in healthcare, enabling medical intervention at the fetal stage to address severe congenital conditions before irreversible harm occurs. As these transformative interventions transition from bench to bedside, significant ethical, legal, and governance challenges arise, particularly concerning maternal-fetal risk-benefit dynamics, informed consent, and regulatory oversight. Recognizing the need for structured and adaptive ethical guidance, we propose a “Points to Consider” (P2C) Framework, developed through a multidisciplinary initiative involving experts in drug development, bioethics norms, human rights, and governance, based on a review of international scientific, regulatory, and ethical literature. The P2C integrates those considerations into nine thematic points addressing: maternal and fetal well-being; risk-benefit assessment, responsible research and clinical care, emerging technology, public engagement, funding sustainability, public health integration, lifecycle governance, and international collaboration. The P2C is designed to support the entire research-to-clinic continuum, fostering multidisciplinary global dialogue. By anchoring prenatal therapeutic innovations within international human rights norms, bioethics standards, and anticipatory governance practices, the P2C aims to ensure that future interventions are safe, ethically robust, and socially aligned. This initiative lays the groundwork for responsibly navigating the complex ethical landscape of prenatal medicine, with implications for policy, clinical practice, and global health equity.

Indexed as

Fetal TherapiesFemaleHuman RightsHumansPregnancyBioethicsELSIFetal medicineFetal therapiesHuman rightsLifecycle governancePrenatal therapyResponsible innovation

Identifiers

PMID41345937
PMCPMC12679734

What Socratic holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
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 Socratic graph.