ArticlePaediatric drugs2008
Documentation of pediatric drug safety in manufacturers' product monographs: a cross-sectional evaluation of the canadian compendium of pharmaceuticals and specialities.
Article in Paediatric drugs, 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.
- Attitudes, knowledge and views on off-label prescribing in children among healthcare professionals in Malaysia.International journal of clinical pharmacy · 2019Article
- Drug formulations that require less than 0.1 mL of stock solution to prepare doses for infants and children.CMAJ : Canadian Medical Association journal = journal de l'Association medicale canadienne · 2011Article
- Safety and transparency of pediatric drug trials.Archives of pediatrics & adolescent medicine · 2009Article
- A Comprehensive List of Items to be Included on a Pediatric Drug Monograph.The journal of pediatric pharmacology and therapeutics : JPPT : the official journal of PPAGArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveTo describe the provision of pediatric drug safety information in a national formulary of manufacturers' drug product monographs.
methodsWe performed a cross-sectional evaluation of comprehensive product monographs contained in the 2005 Canadian Compendium of Pharmaceuticals and Specialities (CPS). We abstracted data describing indications for prescription, statements about pediatric safety, available preparations, and provision of dosing guidelines. For each monograph we classified pediatric safety data as either present, present but limited or absent. We then described the pediatric safety data in CPS monographs for drugs listed in the published formulary of the Hospital for Sick Children, Toronto, Ontario, Canada.
resultsA total of 2232 product monographs were screened; 684 were excluded and 1548 (66%) were further analyzed. 1462 (94%) had indications that did not exclude children. Pediatric safety information was present in 592 (38%), present but limited in 148 (10%), and absent in 808 (52%) drug monographs. Safety statements were absent in 224 (14%) drug monographs that provided both dosing guidelines and formulations suitable for administration to children, and in 214 (52%) of 411 drugs in the pediatric hospital formulary.
conclusionWe evaluated a widely available national source of pediatric prescribing information. Safety data for children was not mentioned in more than half of the product monographs. Moreover, the provision of safety data was discordant with indications for prescription, the availability of pediatric formulations, and dosing guidelines within the monographs, and with inclusion in a pediatric hospital formulary. Our study suggests that the presentation of pediatric safety data in drug product monographs can be improved to better inform prescribing and to optimize pharmacotherapy in children.
Indexed as
Identifiers
18454571What 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.