ArticleBritish journal of clinical pharmacology2014
Bridging the gap: a review of dose investigations in paediatric investigation plans.
Article in British journal of clinical pharmacology, 2014. 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.
- A review on the role of extrapolation as basis for paediatric marketing authorization applications of medicines in the EU.British journal of clinical pharmacology · 2025Review
- Exposure-response modelling approaches for determining optimal dosing rules in children.Statistical methods in medical research · 2020Article
- Pharmacokinetic-Pharmacodynamic Modeling in Pediatric Drug Development, and the Importance of Standardized Scaling of Clearance.Clinical pharmacokinetics · 2019Review
- Dosing antibiotics in neonates: review of the pharmacokinetic data.Future microbiology · 2017Article
- How to optimise drug study design: pharmacokinetics and pharmacodynamics studies introduced to paediatricians.The Journal of pharmacy and pharmacology · 2017Review
- Neonatal drug therapy: The first frontier of therapeutics for children.Clinical pharmacology and therapeutics · 2015Review
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
Abstract
aimsIn the EU, development of new medicines for children should follow a prospectively agreed paediatric investigation plan (PIP). Finding the right dose for children is crucial but challenging due to the variability of pharmacokinetics across age groups and the limited sample sizes available. We examined strategies adopted in PIPs to support paediatric dosing recommendations to identify common assumptions underlying dose investigations and the attempts planned to verify them in children.
methodsWe extracted data from 73 PIP opinions recently adopted by the Paediatric Committee of the European Medicines Agency. These opinions represented 79 medicinal development programmes and comprised a total of 97 dose investigation studies. We identified the design of these dose investigation studies, recorded the analyses planned and determined the criteria used to define target doses.
resultsMost dose investigation studies are clinical trials (83 of 97) that evaluate a single dosing rule. Sample sizes used to investigate dose are highly variable across programmes, with smaller numbers used in younger children (< 2 years). Many studies (40 of 97) do not pre-specify a target dose criterion. Of those that do, most (33 of 57 studies) guide decisions using pharmacokinetic data alone.
conclusionsCommon assumptions underlying dose investigation strategies include dose proportionality and similar exposure-response relationships in adults and children. Few development programmes pre-specify steps to verify assumptions in children. There is scope for the use of Bayesian methods as a framework for synthesizing existing information to quantify prior uncertainty about assumptions. This process can inform the design of optimal drug development strategies.
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.