Evidence map›Paper›PMID 27940891›Full record

ArticlePediatrics2016

Researchers', Regulators', and Sponsors' Views on Pediatric Clinical Trials: A Multinational Study.

Pathma D Joseph, Jonathan C Craig, Allison Tong, Patrina H Y Caldwell

Abstract readMulticenter Study
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Pediatrics, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 13 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
13citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
5.2field-weighted citation impact, top 5% 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

13 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 30 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Observational
  4. Review
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Review
  8. Article
  9. Review
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

4 authors at 3 institutions in 3 countries.

Pathma D JosephCentre for Kidney Research and pathma.joseph@health.nsw.gov.au.
Jonathan C CraigCentre for Kidney Research and.
Allison TongCentre for Kidney Research and.
Patrina H Y CaldwellCentre for Kidney Research and.
Kidney Research UK · GBOffice of Adolescent Health · USUniversity of Sydney · AU

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

BACKGROUND AND

objectiveThe last decade has seen dramatic changes in the regulatory landscape to support more trials involving children, but child-specific challenges and inequitable conduct across income regions persist. The goal of this study was to describe the attitudes and opinions of stakeholders toward trials in children, to inform additional strategies to promote more high-quality, relevant pediatric trials across the globe.

methodsKey informant semi-structured interviews were conducted with stakeholders (researchers, regulators, and sponsors) who were purposively sampled from low- to middle-income countries and high-income countries. The transcripts were thematically analyzed.

resultsThirty-five stakeholders from 10 countries were interviewed. Five major themes were identified: addressing pervasive inequities (paucity of safety and efficacy data, knowledge disparities, volatile environment, double standards, contextual relevance, market-driven forces, industry sponsorship bias and prohibitive costs); contending with infrastructural barriers (resource constraints, dearth of pediatric trial expertise, and logistical complexities); navigating complex ethical and regulatory frameworks ("draconian" oversight, ambiguous requirements, exploitation, excessive paternalism and precariousness of coercion versus volunteerism); respecting uniqueness of children (pediatric research paradigms, child-appropriate approaches, and family-centered empowerment); and driving evidence-based child health (advocacy, opportunities, treatment access, best practices, and research prioritization).

conclusionsStakeholders acknowledge that changes in the regulatory environment have encouraged more trials in children, but they contend that inequities and political, regulatory, and resource barriers continue to exist. Embedding trials as part of routine clinical care, addressing the unique needs of children, and streamlining regulatory approvals were suggested. Stakeholders recommended increasing international collaboration, establishing centralized trials infrastructure, and aligning research to child health priorities to encourage trials that address global child health care needs.

Indexed as

InternationalityPediatricsAdultAgedChildClinical Trials as TopicFemaleHealth PrioritiesHumansInternational CooperationInterviews as TopicMaleMiddle AgedNeeds Assessment

Identifiers

PMID27940891
OpenAlexW2525628681

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.