Evidence map›Paper›PMID 17364191›Full record

ArticleEuropean journal of clinical pharmacology2007

British and Canadian views on the ethics of paediatric clinical trials.

H M Sammons, J Malhotra, I Choonara, D S Sitar, D Matsui, M J Rieder

Abstract readComparative Study
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in European journal of clinical pharmacology, 2007. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 9 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
9citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–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

9 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Review
  4. Review
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Review
  8. Article
  9. 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

6 authors.

H M SammonsAcademic Division of Child Health, University of Nottingham, Medical School, Derbyshire Children's Hospital, Uttoxeter Road, Derby, DE22 3DT, UK. helen.sammons@nottingham.ac.uk
J Malhotra
I Choonara
D S Sitar
D Matsui
M J Rieder

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundEthical problems are quoted as a reason not to perform clinical trials in children. Little is known about the views of researchers regarding ethics.

objectivesA pilot study was conducted to assess the applicability of a questionnaire design containing trial scenarios to examine views regarding the use of children in drug trials and to elicit possible international differences.

settingPaediatricians and researchers in the United Kingdom and Canada.

methodsResponders were presented with a questionnaire containing direct questions and six trial scenarios, each containing an ethical dilemma. Responders were asked regarding their own approval and their perceived opinion of whether an ethical review board (ERB) would approve.

resultsOne hundred questionnaires (50 each country) were received. Few responders had research ethics training (14% United Kingdom and 8% Canada). Most (80 and 88%) felt children could be harmed by participation in trials and half (47 and 59%) felt children should only participate if they receive direct benefit. Many (58 and 61%) disagreed with payments beyond travel expenses. In the trial scenarios, 34% of responders were willing to enter healthy children in a pharmacokinetics study of an antibiotic for cystic fibrosis and 22% considered their ERBs would approve. Only a third (33%) would enter children in an analgesia trial that was placebo-controlled.

conclusionUsing healthy children and placebos in trials caused concern. Similar views were found between the two countries. The majority had no training in research ethics. The study highlights the usefulness of a questionnaire with clinical trial scenarios to try to elicit views on the ethics of conducting research in children.

Indexed as

Attitude of Health PersonnelEthics, ResearchPediatricsCanadaChildControlled Clinical Trials as TopicCross-Cultural ComparisonEthics Committees, ResearchHuman ExperimentationHumansPhysiciansPilot ProjectsPlacebosResearch PersonnelSurveys and QuestionnairesUnited KingdomPlacebos

Identifiers

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.