Evidence map›Paper›PMID 27582776›Full record

ArticleAllergy, asthma, and clinical immunology : official journal of the Canadian Society of Allergy and Clinical Immunology2016

Systematic review of outcome measures in pediatric eosinophilic esophagitis treatment trials.

Tamar Rubin, Jacqueline Clayton, Denise Adams, Rabin Persad, Sunita Vohra

Open access · goldAbstract read
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Allergy, asthma, and clinical immunology : official journal of the Canadian Society of Allergy and Clinical Immunology, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
3citing papers in PubMed
1.3field-weighted citation impact, top 19% 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

3 citing papers in PubMed, 7 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Observational
  2. A Conceptual Approach to Understanding Treatment Response in Eosinophilic Esophagitis.Clinical gastroenterology and hepatology : the official clinical practice journal of the American Gastroenterological Association · 2019
    Review
  3. Review
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

5 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Tamar RubinDepartment of Pediatrics, University of Alberta, 11405-87 Avenue, 3rd Floor, Edmonton Clinic Health Academy, Edmonton, AB T6G 1C9 Canada.ORCID 0000-0001-6386-5149
Jacqueline ClaytonDepartment of Pediatrics, University of Alberta, 11405-87 Avenue, 3rd Floor, Edmonton Clinic Health Academy, Edmonton, AB T6G 1C9 Canada.
Denise AdamsDepartment of Pediatrics, University of Alberta, 11405-87 Avenue, 3rd Floor, Edmonton Clinic Health Academy, Edmonton, AB T6G 1C9 Canada ; CARE Program, University of Alberta, Suite #1702, College Plaza, 8215 112 St NW, Edmonton, AB T6G 2C8 Canada.
Rabin PersadDepartment of Pediatrics, University of Alberta, 11405-87 Avenue, 3rd Floor, Edmonton Clinic Health Academy, Edmonton, AB T6G 1C9 Canada ; Department of Pediatric Gastroenterology and Nutrition, University of Alberta, 11405-87 Avenue, 3rd Floor, Edmonton Clinic Health Academy, Edmonton, AB T6G 1C9 Canada.
Sunita VohraDepartment of Pediatrics, University of Alberta, 11405-87 Avenue, 3rd Floor, Edmonton Clinic Health Academy, Edmonton, AB T6G 1C9 Canada ; CARE Program, University of Alberta, Suite #1702, College Plaza, 8215 112 St NW, Edmonton, AB T6G 2C8 Canada ; Department of Public Health Sciences, University of Alberta, 3-300 Edmonton Clinic Health Academy, 11405-87 Ave, Edmonton, AB T6G 1C9 Canada.
University of Alberta · CA

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundHeterogeneity has been noted in the selection and reporting of disease-specific, pediatric outcomes in randomized controlled trials (RCTs). The consequence is invalid results or difficulty comparing results across trials. The primary objective of this systematic review was to assess primary outcome and outcome measure selection and reporting, in pediatric eosinophilic esophagitis (EoE) treatment trials. As secondary objectives, we compared trial disease definition to established concensus guidelines, and the efficacy of current EoE treatments.

methodsWe searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, The Cochrane Library, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), and CINAHL since 2001. We also searched clinical trial registries (portal.nihr.ac.uk; clinicaltrials.gov; isrctn.com; and anzctr.org.au) and references of included studies. We included RCTs of EoE treatment in patients 0-18 years. Two authors independently assessed articles.

resultsEleven studies met inclusion criteria. All identified primary outcomes, however, of 9 unique primary outcomes, only 2 were used in more than one study. In total, 25 unique primary and secondary outcome measures were employed for pediatric EoE treatment trials. Measurement properties and rationale for their selection was rarely provided. Uptake of consensus-based diagnostic criteria was 25 % in trials initiated after 2011. Due to the small number and heterogeneity of studies obtained, no meta-analysis of treatment efficacy could be undertaken. This SR was limited to exclusively pediatric RCTs.

conclusionsThe results of this study confirm the need for a standardized set of core outcomes that are universally reported in pediatric EoE trials. Consistent disease definition and standardized outcome reporting will facilitate meta-analyses across similar trials and inform future clinical decision-making. Systematic review registration number CRD42013003798.

Indexed as

Eosinophilic esophagitisOutcome measuresPediatricSystematic reviewTreatment

Identifiers

PMID27582776
PMCPMC5006498
OpenAlexW2513185070

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.