Evidence map›Paper›PMID 24376857›Full record

ArticlePloS one2013

The effects of industry sponsorship on comparator selection in trial registrations for neuropsychiatric conditions in children.

Adam G Dunn, Kenneth D Mandl, Enrico Coiera, Florence T Bourgeois

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in PloS one, 2013. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
5citing papers in PubMed, 2 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

5 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Industry sponsorship and research outcome.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2017
    Pooled it
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. 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

4 authors.

Adam G DunnCentre for Health Informatics, Australian Institute of Health Innovation, University of New South Wales, Sydney, New South Wales, Australia.
Kenneth D MandlChildren's Hospital Informatics Program at Harvard-MIT Health Sciences and Technology, Boston Children's Hospital, Boston, Massachusetts, United States of America ; Division of Emergency Medicine, Boston Children's Hospital, Boston, Massachusetts, United States of America ; Department of Pediatrics, Harvard Medical School, Boston, Massachusetts, United States of America.
Enrico CoieraCentre for Health Informatics, Australian Institute of Health Innovation, University of New South Wales, Sydney, New South Wales, Australia.
Florence T BourgeoisDivision of Emergency Medicine, Boston Children's Hospital, Boston, Massachusetts, United States of America ; Department of Pediatrics, Harvard Medical School, Boston, Massachusetts, United States of America.

Funding

Establishing Surveillance of the Pediatric Evidence Base for Drug TherapyR21HD072382 · NICHD · BOSTON CHILDREN'S HOSPITAL · PI BOURGEOIS, FLORENCE, MANDL, KENNETH D. · 2012 to 2013
$479k
NICHD NIH HHS 1R21HD072382NICHD NIH HHS R21 HD072382
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Pediatric populations continue to be understudied in clinical drug trials despite the increasing use of pharmacotherapy in children, particularly with psychotropic drugs. Most pertinent to the clinical selection of drug interventions are trials directly comparing drugs against other drugs. The aim was to measure the prevalence of active drug comparators in neuropsychiatric drug trials in children and identify the effects of funding source on comparator selection. We analyzed the selection of drugs and drug comparisons in clinical trials registered between January 2006 and May 2012. Completed and ongoing interventional trials examining treatments for six neuropsychiatric conditions in children were included. Networks of drug comparisons for each condition were constructed using information about the trial study arms. Of 421 eligible trial registrations, 228 (63,699 participants) were drug trials addressing ADHD (106 trials), autism spectrum disorders (47), unipolar depression (16), seizure disorders (38), migraines and other headaches (15), or schizophrenia (11). Active drug comparators were used in only 11.0% of drug trials while 44.7% used a placebo control and 44.3% no drug or placebo comparator. Even among conditions with well-established pharmacotherapeutic options, almost all drug interventions were compared to a placebo. Active comparisons were more common among trials without industry funding (17% vs. 8%, p=0.04). Trials with industry funding differed from non-industry trials in terms of the drugs studied and the comparators selected. For 73% (61/84) of drugs and 90% (19/21) of unique comparisons, trials were funded exclusively by either industry or non-industry. We found that industry and non-industry differed when choosing comparators and active drug comparators were rare for both groups. This gap in pediatric research activity limits the evidence available to clinicians treating children and suggests a need to reassess the design and funding of pediatric trials in order to optimize the information derived from pediatric participation in clinical trials.

Indexed as

ChildClinical Trials as TopicDrug IndustryDrug TherapyHumansNeuropsychiatryResearch Design

Identifiers

PMID24376857
PMCPMC3871546

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.