Further research is needed

She has also described FRIN as "an indicator that serious scholarly thinking on the topic has ceased", saying that "it is almost never the only logical conclusion that can be drawn from a set of negative, ambiguous, incomplete or contradictory data.

"[6] Greenhalgh suggests that, because vague FRIN statements are an argument that "tomorrow's research investments should be pitched into precisely the same patch of long grass as yesterday's", funding should be refused to those making them.

[6][7] Academic journal editors were banning unqualified FRIN statements as early as 1990, requiring more specific information such as what types of research were needed, and what questions they ought to address.

The blobbogram leading this article is from a systematic review; it shows clinical trials of the use of corticosteroids to hasten lung development in pregnancies where a baby is likely to be born prematurely.

After the review made the evidence better known, the treatment was used more, preventing thousands of pre-term babies from dying of infant respiratory distress syndrome.

The December 2020 version of the review stated that the "evidence [that the treatment saves babies] is robust, regardless of resource setting (high, middle or low)" and that further research should focus on "specific understudied subgroups such as multiple pregnancies and other high-risk obstetric groups, and the risks and benefits in the very early or very late preterm periods".