ArticlePediatrics2016
Researchers', Regulators', and Sponsors' Views on Pediatric Clinical Trials: A Multinational Study.
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.
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
13 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 30 citations in OpenAlex.
- Clinical significance in pediatric oncology randomized controlled treatment trials: a systematic review.Trials · 2018Pooled it
- Requirements and special considerations for drug trials with children across six jurisdictions: 2. Ethics review in the regulatory approval process.Frontiers in medicine · 2025Article
- Quality assessment of paediatric randomized controlled trials published in China from 1999 to 2022: a cross-sectional study.BMC pediatrics · 2024Observational
- Evidence in Focus: The Sparse Landscape of Randomized Trials on Retinoblastoma Treatment.Ocular oncology and pathology · 2024Review
- Comparison of Clinical Characteristics Between Clinical Trial Participants and Nonparticipants Using Electronic Health Record Data.JAMA network open · 2021Article
- Paediatric Medicines in Europe: The Paediatric Regulation-Is It Time for Reform?Frontiers in medicine · 2021Article
- Innovations in Pediatric Drug Formulations and Administration Technologies for Low Resource Settings.Pharmaceutics · 2019Review
- Reporting of data monitoring committees and adverse events in paediatric trials: a descriptive analysis.BMJ paediatrics open · 2019Article
- Pediatric Trials Run in India: An Analysis of Clinical Trials.gov 2006-2015.Indian journal of pediatrics · 2019Review
- The Influence of Industry Sponsorship on the Research Agenda: A Scoping Review.American journal of public health · 2018Article
- Cultural considerations for informed consent in paediatric research in low/middle-income countries: a scoping review.BMJ paediatrics open · 2018Article
- Protecting Children Through Research.Pediatrics · 2016Article
- Conducting community-based pediatric research in rural India: Experience from vadu rural health program.Perspectives in clinical researchReview
Corrections and comments
- Commented on by
Authors and funding
4 authors at 3 institutions in 3 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
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
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.