Trial reportTrials2014
Aggregated n-of-1 trials of central nervous system stimulants versus placebo for paediatric traumatic brain injury--a pilot study.
Trial report in Trials, 2014. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 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
7 citing papers in PubMed, 20 citations in OpenAlex.
- Trial
- Article
- Establishment of an International Collaborative Network for N-of-1 Trials and Single-Case Designs.Contemporary clinical trials communications · 2021Article
- Traumatic Brain Injury-Related Attention Deficits in Children: A Controlled Treatment Trial with Lisdexamfetamine Dimesylate (Vyvanse).Brain sciences · 2021Article
- Clinical and Vitamin Response to a Short-Term Multi-Micronutrient Intervention in Brazilian Children and Teens: From Population Data to Interindividual Responses.Molecular nutrition & food research · 2018Article
- Manic Symptoms Due to Methylphenidate Use in an Adolescent with Traumatic Brain Injury.Clinical psychopharmacology and neuroscience : the official scientific journal of the Korean College of Neuropsychopharmacology · 2016Article
- The genomics of micronutrient requirements.Genes & nutrition · 2015Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors at 7 institutions in 3 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundIn 2006 there were 432,700 people in Australia who had acquired brain injury (ABI) with some limitation of activities; 90% of these were traumatic brain injuries (TBIs) and nearly a third sustained injury below age 15 years. One to four years post injury, 20% to 46% of children with traumatic brain injury (TBI) have clinically significant disorders of attention. There is controversy as to whether central nervous system (CNS) stimulants can be an effective method of treating these.Objectives were to determine the efficacy of CNS stimulants for children with TBI, and to calculate the sample size for a larger trial using the Conners' 3 Parent Rating Scales Score as the primary endpoint.
methodsPilot series of aggregated prospective randomised, double-blind, n-of-1 trials of stimulant versus placebo within individual patients.
settingtertiary children's public hospital.
participantsten children aged 6 to 16 years more than 12 months post TBI with attention, concentration and behavioral difficulties on stimulants.
interventionsThree cycles of methylphenidate or dexamphetamine orally at doses titrated by physician compared to placebo.
main outcome measuresConners 3 Parent (Conners 3-P) and Teacher (Conners 3-T) Rating Scales (Global Index), Behaviour Rating Inventory of Executive Function (BRIEF) and Eyberg Child Behaviour Inventory (ECBI).
resultsFive of ten patients completed the study. Data from 18 completed cycles from seven patients were analysed. The posterior mean difference between stimulant and placebo scores for the Conners 3-PS (Global Index) was 2.3 (SD 6.2; 95% credible region -1.0 to 6.1; posterior probability that this mean difference was greater than zero was 0.92), and for the Conners 3-T (Global Index) the posterior mean difference was 5.9 (SD 4.5; 95% credible region -3.1 to 14.9; posterior probability 0.93). Posterior mean differences suggest improvement in behaviour and executive function and a decrease in number and intensity of child behaviour problems when taking stimulants compared to placebo. Taken together these data are suggestive of a small benefit at group level.
conclusionsIn this pilot study, there was sufficient evidence that stimulants may be useful in management of behavioral and cognitive sequelae following TBI, to warrant a larger trial.
trial registrationhe trial was registered with the Australian and New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry: registration number ACTRN12609000873224.
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.