Evidence map›Paper›PMID 29899384›Full record

ArticlePediatric research2018

Reporting of interventions and "standard of care" control arms in pediatric clinical trials: a quantitative analysis.

Ashley M Yu, Bannuya Balasubramanaiam, Martin Offringa, Lauren E Kelly

Abstract read
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Pediatric research, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 16 papers, 3 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
16citing papers in PubMed, 3 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
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

16 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Trial
  5. Trial
  6. Trial
  7. Laser-Assisted Drug Delivery for Hypertrophic Scar Treatment: A Scoping Review.Journal of burn care & research : official publication of the American Burn Association · 2026
    Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Review
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Review
  16. 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

4 authors.

Ashley M YuDoctor of Medicine Program, Faculty of Medicine, University of Ottawa, Ottawa, ON, Canada.
Bannuya BalasubramanaiamDoctor of Medicine Program, Faculty of Medicine, University of Ottawa, Ottawa, ON, Canada.
Martin OffringaChild Health Evaluative Sciences, The Hospital for Sick Children, Toronto, ON, Canada.
Lauren E KellyDepartment of Pediatrics and Child Health, Clinical Trials Platform, George and Fay Yee Centre for Healthcare Innovation, University of Manitoba, Winnipeg, MB, Canada. lauren.elyse.kelly@gmail.com.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundIn pediatric medicine, the usual treatment received by children ("standard of care") varies across centers. Evaluations of new treatments often compare to the existing "standard of care" to determine if a treatment is more effective, has a better safety profile, or costs less. The objective of our study was to evaluate intervention and "standard of care" control arms reported in published pediatric clinical trials.

methodsPediatric clinical trials, published in 2014, reporting the use of a "standard of care" control arm were included. Duplicate assessment of reporting completeness was done using the 12-item TIDieR (Template for Intervention Description and Replication) checklist for both the "standard of care" control arms and intervention arms within the same published study.

resultsFollowing screening, 214 pediatric trials in diverse therapeutic areas were included. Several different terms were used to describe "standard of care." There was a significant difference between the mean reported TIDieR checklist items of "standard of care" control arms (5.81 (SD 2.13) and intervention arms (8.45 (SD 1.39, p < 0.0001).

conclusionsReporting of intervention and "standard of care" control arms in pediatric clinical trials should be improved as current "standard of care" reporting deficiencies limit reproducibility of research and may ultimately contribute to research waste.

Indexed as

ChecklistStandard of CareAdolescentChildChild, PreschoolClinical Trials as TopicHumansInfantInfant, NewbornMultivariate AnalysisPediatricsProspective StudiesPublicationsReproducibility of ResultsResearch DesignYoung Adult

Identifiers

PMID29899384

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.