ArticleBritish journal of clinical pharmacology2009
Access to prescribing information for paediatric medicines in the USA: post-modernization.
Article in British journal of clinical pharmacology, 2009. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 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
6 citing papers in PubMed.
- Information in summaries of product characteristics about use in children is limited and needs standardisation: a systematic analysis in Switzerland.Archives of disease in childhood · 2024Article
- Two decades of off-label prescribing in children: a literature review.World journal of pediatrics : WJP · 2018Review
- Developing drugs for children and the adjustment of medication-is it a new challenge or an adaptation of past ideas?Journal of personalized medicine · 2011Article
- The availability and age-appropriateness of medicines authorized for children in The Netherlands.British journal of clinical pharmacology · 2011Article
- Access to children's medicines in the United Kingdom, Australia and New Zealand in 1998, 2002 and 2007.Pharmacy world & science : PWS · 2010Article
- Availability of pediatric-evaluated formulations in Serbia.Indian journal of pharmacologyArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
aimsThe aims of the present study were to examine the Physicians' Desk Reference (PDR) for changes in the listing of medicines licensed for children in the USA over a 10-year period (1998-2007).
methodsThe USA PDR was used to identify products listed in 1998, 2002 and 2007. Information about generic name (active agent), salt, strength, brand name, suitability of formulation, paediatric licensing information and the lowest age of licensing was extracted. Prescription products were collapsed down to chemical entities/fixed-dose combinations.
resultsOf the prescription entities listed in the PDR, 538 (55.9%), 488 (54.3%) and 394 (51.3%) were licensed for children in 1998, 2002 and 2007, respectively. There was a 39% decrease in the number of entities licensed for the newborn and a 34% decrease for children aged 2-6 years between 1998 and 2007. Formulations suitable for children were listed for 611 (63.4%), 550 (61.2%) and 430 (60.6%), respectively. Prescription entities with both a suitable oral formulation and licensing for children numbered 161 (16.7%), 148 (16.5%) and 100 (14.1%) in 1998, 2002 and 2007, respectively.
conclusionsThe listings in the PDR suggest that overall access to prescribing information about drugs in the paediatric population has not shown an increase over the decade. This particularly affected the neonatal age group.
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.