Evidence map›Paper›PMID 19996043›Full record

ArticleArchives of pediatrics & adolescent medicine2009

Safety and transparency of pediatric drug trials.

Daniel K Benjamin, P Brian Smith, M Jessica M Sun, M Dianne Murphy, Debbie Avant, Lisa Mathis, William Rodriguez, Robert M Califf, Jennifer S Li

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Archives of pediatrics & adolescent medicine, 2009. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 24 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
24citing 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

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

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Review
  10. Article
  11. Review
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Review
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Pediatric clinical trials.Perspectives in clinical research · 2013
    Article
  20. 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

9 authors.

Daniel K BenjaminDepartment of Pediatrics, Duke Clinical Research Institute, Duke University, Durham, North Carolina, USA. danny.benjamin@duke.edu
P Brian Smith
M Jessica M Sun
M Dianne Murphy
Debbie Avant
Lisa Mathis
William Rodriguez
Robert M Califf
Jennifer S Li

Funding

Pilot Project for the DTMI CRA ProgramUL1RR024128 · NCRR · DUKE UNIVERSITY · PI CALIFF, ROBERT M · 2006 to 2010
$48.1M
Prevention of Invasive Candidiasis: PK, Safety, and Neurodevelopmental OutcomesR01HD057956 · NICHD · DUKE UNIVERSITY · PI BENJAMIN, DANIEL K. · 2008 to 2012
$2.8M
North Carolina Collaborative PPRU NetworkU10HD045962 · NICHD · DUKE UNIVERSITY · PI BENJAMIN, DANIEL K. · 2004 to 2009
$2.1M
Prevention of Invasive Candidiasis: PK, Safety, and Neurodevelopmental OutcomesR01FD003519 · FDA · DUKE UNIVERSITY · PI BENJAMIN, DANIEL K. · 2008 to 2011
$1.6M
Mentorship of early-career pediatricians in quantitiative methods and therapeuticK24HD058735 · NICHD · DUKE UNIVERSITY · PI BENJAMIN, DANIEL K. · 2009 to 2018
$1.5M
FDA HHS 1R01FD003519-01NCRR NIH HHS 1UL 1RR024128-02NICHD NIH HHS 1K24HD058735-01NICHD NIH HHS 1R01HD057956-02NICHD NIH HHS 1U10-HD45962-04NICHD NIH HHS 1U10-HD45962-06NICHD NIH HHS U10 HD045962
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectivesTo quantify the frequency and type of new safety information arising from studies performed under the auspices of the Pediatric Exclusivity Program, to describe the dissemination of these findings in the peer-reviewed literature and compare this with the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) review, and to describe their effect on pediatric labeling.

designCohort study of the 365 trials performed for 153 drugs.

settingThe Pediatric Exclusivity incentive from December 1997 through September 2007.

participantsFood and Drug Administration publicly available records and peer-reviewed literature retrievable by MEDLINE search. Main Exposures New safety findings obtained from the trials completed for exclusivity. OUTCOME MEASURES: Concordance of the information highlighted in the peer-reviewed article abstracts with the information in the FDA labeling and drug reviews.

resultsThere were 137 labeling changes; we evaluated 129 of these (the 8 selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors were excluded from review). Thirty-three products (26%) had pediatric safety information added to the labeling. Of these, 12 products had neuropsychiatric safety findings and 21 had other important safety findings. Only 16 of 33 of these trials (48%) were reported in the peer-reviewed literature; however, 7 of 16 focused on findings substantively different from those highlighted in the FDA reviews and labeling changes.

conclusionsMedication adverse events in children often differ from those in adults, particularly those that are neuropsychiatric in nature. Labeling changes for pediatric use demonstrate that pediatric drug studies provide valuable and unique safety data that can guide the use of these drugs in children. Unfortunately, most of these articles are not published, and almost half of the published articles focus their attention away from the crucial safety data.

Indexed as

Clinical Trials as TopicPediatricsPharmaceutical PreparationsCohort StudiesDrug LabelingHumansPeer Review, ResearchPublicationsSafetyUnited StatesUnited States Food and Drug AdministrationPharmaceutical Preparations

Identifiers

PMID19996043
PMCPMC2792563

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceTDM
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.