ArticleEuropean journal of clinical pharmacology2008
The DEC-net European register of paediatric drug therapy trials: contents and context.
Article in European journal of clinical pharmacology, 2008. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- Drug versus placebo randomized controlled trials in neonates: A review of ClinicalTrials.gov registry.PloS one · 2017Article
- Article
- Paediatric use of mycophenolate mofetil.British journal of clinical pharmacology · 2013Review
- Pharmacokinetic research in children: an analysis of registered records of clinical trials.BMJ open · 2011Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
13 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveTo describe the results and conclusions of DEC-net, an international, publicly available register of paediatric drug therapy clinical trials, and to assess which paediatric health areas are covered by research and by which trial types.
methodsThe contents of the register, which was set up by four groups (Italy, UK, France, Spain) who searched for paediatric trials and collected data between 2004-2006, were analysed. The disease areas reflected were compared with those covered by published trials and Burden of Disease (BD) data.
resultsIn all, 257 trial records were analysed, 86 of which were entered by the Italian partner, 84 by the UK partner, 56 by the French partner and 31 by the Spanish partner. Spain entered the majority of multinational trials, while the UK had the majority of single-centre national trials. Most trials were experimental (79%), and the most commonly represented diseases were neoplasms (14% trials). In all, 28% were double-blind randomised controlled trials (RCTs). The most common disease areas addressed in the 257 trials were similar to the published trials' areas. In contrast, the primary research area was low on the BD list.
conclusionsDEC-net has demonstrated that international research efforts exist, even for paediatrics, although there may be an imbalance between national and multinational studies and a limited approach to double-blind RCTs. Recent initiatives will increase the number of children participating in research, and European legislation will require prospective registration. Paediatric research priorities must be better defined, however, and this can be done by registering research and making the information available to all relevant actors.
Indexed as
Identifiers
18351329What 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.