GuidelineEuropean journal of pediatrics2018
EAP viewpoint on unpublished data from paediatric clinical trials.
Guideline in European journal of pediatrics, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Exploring the publication gap in pediatric randomized clinical trials: completed vs. uncompleted pediatric clinical trials.Frontiers in medicine · 2025Article
- Off-label use of medicines in neonates, infants, children, and adolescents: a joint policy statement by the European Academy of Paediatrics and the European society for Developmental Perinatal and Pediatric Pharmacology.European journal of pediatrics · 2020Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
European children and paediatricians rely heavily on the fair, complete and timely publication of data obtained from paediatric randomised controlled trials (RCTs). Selective publication and reporting of paediatric RCTs is common practice. Industry-sponsored trials are more likely to remain unpublished, and take longer to get published compared with trials sponsored by others. However, also academic sponsors contribute to inefficiencies in publishing clinical data. Publication bias violates the ethical obligation that investigators have towards study participants, leads to considerable inefficiencies in research and a waste of financial and human resources, and has the potential to distort evidence for treatment approaches.
conclusionThe European Academy of Paediatrics (EAP) therefore actively supports initiatives that increase the public dissemination of paediatric clinical trial data. The EAP will raise awareness about the guidelines for Good Publication Practice among European paediatricians and subspecialty societies.
Indexed as
Identifiers
28875393What 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.