SynthesisBMC pediatrics2005
Children in reviews: methodological issues in child-relevant evidence syntheses.
Synthesis in BMC pediatrics, 2005. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 18 papers.
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.
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.
Who cites it
18 citing papers in PubMed.
- Review
- Multisource representation learning for pediatric knowledge extraction from electronic health records.NPJ digital medicine · 2024Article
- Value of preclinical systematic reviews and meta-analyses in pediatric research.Pediatric research · 2024Article
- Systems for rating bodies of evidence used in systematic reviews of air pollution exposure and reproductive and children's health: a methodological survey.Environmental health : a global access science source · 2024Review
- Clinical trials of stem cell-based therapies for pediatric diseases: a comprehensive analysis of trials registered on ClinicalTrials.gov and the ICTRP portal site.Stem cell research & therapy · 2022Article
- Prevalence, Cost, and Variation in Cost of Pediatric Hospitalizations in Ontario, Canada.JAMA network open · 2022Article
- A descriptive analysis of non-Cochrane child-relevant systematic reviews published in 2014.BMC medical research methodology · 2018Article
- Are child-centric aspects in newborn and child health systematic review and meta-analysis protocols and reports adequately reported?-two systematic reviews.Systematic reviews · 2017Article
- Do systematic reviews on pediatric topics need special methodological considerations?BMC pediatrics · 2017Article
- Article
- Article
- Clinical trials in children.British journal of clinical pharmacology · 2015Review
- Ethical issues at the interface of clinical care and research practice in pediatric oncology: a narrative review of parents' and physicians' experiences.BMC medical ethics · 2011Article
- The evidence base for interventions delivered to children in primary care: an overview of cochrane systematic reviews.PloS one · 2011Review
- Article
- A descriptive analysis of child-relevant systematic reviews in the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews.BMC pediatrics · 2010Article
- Children are not just small adults: the urgent need for high-quality trial evidence in children.PLoS medicine · 2008Article
- Treatment in the pediatric emergency department is evidence based: a retrospective analysis.BMC pediatrics · 2006Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThe delivery of optimal medical care to children is dependent on the availability of child relevant research. Our objectives were to: i) systematically review and describe how children are handled in reviews of drug interventions published in the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews (CDSR); and ii) determine when effect sizes for the same drug interventions differ between children and adults.
methodsWe systematically identified all of the reviews relevant to child health in the CDSR 2002, Issue 4. Reviews were included if they investigated the efficacy or effectiveness of a drug intervention for a condition that occurs in both children and adults. Information was extracted on review characteristics including study methods, results, and conclusions.
resultsFrom 1496 systematic reviews, 408 (27%) were identified as relevant to both adult and child health; 52% (213) of these included data from children. No significant differences were found in effect sizes between adults and children for any of the drug interventions or conditions investigated. However, all of the comparisons lacked the power to detect a clinically significant difference and wide confidence intervals suggest important differences cannot be excluded. A large amount of data was unavailable due to inadequate reporting at the trial and systematic review level.
conclusionOverall, the findings of this study indicate there is a paucity of child-relevant and specific evidence generated from evidence syntheses of drug interventions. The results indicate a need for a higher standard of reporting for participant populations in studies of drug interventions.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.