ReviewPaediatric drugs2015
Ethics review of pediatric multi-center drug trials.
Review in Paediatric drugs, 2015. 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.
- Requirements and special considerations for drug trials with children across six jurisdictions: 2. Ethics review in the regulatory approval process.Frontiers in medicine · 2025Article
- Enhancing immune regulationFrontiers in immunology · 2024Article
- [Variability and discrepancies between Ethics Committees in the evaluation of academic research projects]Revista de la Facultad de Ciencias Medicas (Cordoba, Argentina) · 2023Article
- A call for a streamlined ethics review process for multijurisdictional, child health research studies.Paediatrics & child health · 2020Article
- Innovative approaches to investigator-initiated, multicentre paediatric clinical trials in Canada.BMJ open · 2019Article
- Creating a new ethical climate for drug research in children and pregnant women.Paediatric drugs · 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
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The assessment of safety and efficacy of therapeutics for children and adolescents requires the use of multi-centered designs. However, the need to obtain ethical approval from multiple independent research ethics boards (REBs) presents as a challenge to investigators and sponsors who must consider local requirements while ensuring that the protection of human subjects is consistent across sites. In pediatrics, this requirement is complicated by pediatric-specific ethical concerns such as the acquisition of assent and consent and the need for pediatric expertise to assess the scholarly merit of the proposed research. Efforts to tackle these challenges have focused on the process of ethics review, which will improve efficiency. In addition to improving process, we suggest further research to fill gaps in the evidence base for recommendations and decisions made by REBs, specifically their effectiveness to protect human subjects. Evidence gathered will contribute to the successful development, adoption and implementation of harmonized guidance to apply ethics principles in order to protect children through research rather than from research.
Indexed as
Identifiers
25354988What 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.