Evidence map›Paper›PMID 15948940›Full record

ArticleBritish journal of clinical pharmacology2005

Effect of the pediatric exclusivity provision on children's access to medicines.

Joanne Grieve, June Tordoff, David Reith, Pauline Norris

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in British journal of clinical pharmacology, 2005. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 15 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
15citing 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

15 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Review
  3. Review
  4. Article
  5. Licensing and labelling of drugs in a paediatric oncology ward.British journal of clinical pharmacology · 2011
    Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. The ethics of psychopharmacological research in legal minors.Child and adolescent psychiatry and mental health · 2008
    Article
  10. Article
  11. Review
  12. Article
  13. Expanding Bioshield: a call for caution.American journal of public health · 2007
    Article
  14. Article
  15. 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.

Joanne GrieveSchool of Pharmacy, University of Otago, New Zealand.
June Tordoff
David Reith
Pauline Norris

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

aimsTo determine the paediatric licensing status in the USA, UK, Australia and New Zealand of the 79 medicines granted paediatric exclusivity in the USA, and to assess the importance of those medicines to paediatric practice.

methodsThe medicines granted a patent extension in the USA as of 10 November 2003 were identified from the FDA website. Data on paediatric licensing were obtained from the Physicians Desk Reference (USA), the Electronic Medicines Compendium (UK), the Australian Prescription Products Guide (Australia) and the MedSafe website (New Zealand). A questionnaire was administered to seven paediatric consultants to assess the importance of the 79 PEMs for use in children. The questionnaire sought opinions on each drug, by age grouping, regarding: usefulness in patients with the condition, number of patients likely to be treated with each drug in a year, and acceptable therapeutic alternatives.

resultsFifty-eight (73%) of the medicines had attained paediatric licensing in the USA. Sixty were licensed for adults in all four countries and of these 45 (75%) were licensed for children under 12 years in the USA compared with 31 (52%) to 33 (55%) for the other three countries. The proportion of these medicines licensed for children under 1 month, under 2 years and under 6 years of age ranged from 10% to 58% and there were no significant differences between the countries. For all four countries perceived usefulness and predicted numbers of patients both had some influence on the odds of a medicine having paediatric licensing.

conclusionsImprovements in licensing of some medicines for children have occurred in the USA, relative to the UK, Australia and New Zealand, subsequent to the Paediatric Exclusivity Provision. Improvements occurred for children over the age of six, but not for younger children.

Indexed as

Age FactorsAustraliaChildChild, PreschoolDrug ApprovalHumansInfantInfant, NewbornLegislation, DrugLicensureNew ZealandPediatricsPharmaceutical PreparationsUnited KingdomUnited StatesPharmaceutical Preparations

Identifiers

PMID15948940
PMCPMC1884875

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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 OpenQuestion graph.