Evidence map›Paper›PMID 24750505›Full record

ReviewBritish journal of clinical pharmacology2015

The development and assessment of biological treatments for children.

Eve M D Smith, Helen E Foster, Michael W Beresford

Open access · bronzeAbstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in British journal of clinical pharmacology, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
5citing papers in PubMed
1.2field-weighted citation impact, top 22% of its field
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, 10 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Review
  3. Article
  4. Observational
  5. Paediatric prescribing: why children are not small adults.British journal of clinical pharmacology · 2015
    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

3 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.

Eve M D SmithInstitute of Translational Medicine, University of Liverpool, Liverpool, UK.
Helen E Foster
Michael W Beresford
Alder Hey Children's NHS Foundation Trust · GBNewcastle University · GBUniversity of Liverpool · GB

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The development of biological agents with specific immunological targets has revolutionized the treatment of a wide variety of paediatric diseases where traditional immunosuppressive agents have been partly ineffective or intolerable. The increasing requirement for pharmaceutical companies to undertake paediatric studies has provided impetus for studies of biologics in children. The assessment of biological agents in children to date has largely relied upon randomized controlled trials using a withdrawal design, rather than a parallel study design. This approach has been largely used due to ethical concerns, including use of placebo treatments in children with active chronic disease, and justified on the basis that treatments have usually already undergone robust assessment in related adult conditions. However, this study design limits the reliability of the data and can confuse the interpretation of safety results. Careful ongoing monitoring of safety and efficacy in real-world practice through national and international biologics registries and robust reporting systems is crucial. The most commonly used biological agents in children target tumour necrosis factor-α, interleukin-1, interleukin-6 and cytotoxic lymphocyte-associated antigen-4. These agents are most frequently used in paediatric rheumatic diseases. This review discusses the development and assessment of biologics within paediatric rheumatology with reference to the lessons learned from use in other subspecialties.

Indexed as

Biological ProductsAutoimmune DiseasesChildDrug DiscoveryHumansRandomized Controlled Trials as TopicResearch DesignTreatment OutcomeBiological Productsadverse drug reactionsbiologicsclinical trialspaediatric rheumatology

Identifiers

PMID24750505
PMCPMC4345949
OpenAlexW1521254441

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.