Evidence map›Paper›PMID 30555937›Full record

ArticleBMJ paediatrics open2018

Consent and recruitment: the reporting of paediatric trials published in 2012.

Allison Gates, Patrina Caldwell, Sarah Curtis, Leonila Dans, Ricardo M Fernandes, Lisa Hartling, Lauren E Kelly, Katrina Williams, Kerry Woolfall, Michele P Dyson

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in BMJ paediatrics open, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
8citing papers in PubMed
–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

8 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Review
  4. Challenges in conducting paediatric trials with off-patent drugs.Contemporary clinical trials communications · 2021
    Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Fake news and fake research: Why meta-research matters more than ever.Journal of paediatrics and child health · 2020
    Article
  8. Article
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

10 authors.

Allison GatesAlberta Research Centre for Health Evidence, University of Alberta, Edmonton, Alberta, Canada.ORCID 0000-0002-0845-9786
Patrina CaldwellDiscipline of Child and Adolescent Health and Centre for Kidney Research, The University of Sydney, Sydney, New South Wales, Australia.
Sarah CurtisDepartment of Pediatrics, University of Alberta, Edmonton, Alberta, Canada.
Leonila DansDepartment of Medicine, University of the Philippines, Manila, Philippines.
Ricardo M FernandesInstituto de Medicina Molecular, Faculdade de Medicina, Universidade de Lisboa, Lisboa, Portugal.
Lisa HartlingAlberta Research Centre for Health Evidence, University of Alberta, Edmonton, Alberta, Canada.
Lauren E KellyDepartment of Pediatrics and Child Health, University of Manitoba, Winnipeg, Manitoba, Canada.
Katrina WilliamsDevelopmental Medicine, Royal Children's Hospital, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia.
Kerry WoolfallInstitute of Psychology, Health and Society, University of Liverpool, Liverpool, UK.
Michele P DysonAlberta Research Centre for Health Evidence, University of Alberta, Edmonton, Alberta, Canada.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectivesWe evaluated 300 paediatric trials to determine: the consent and recruitment strategies used, who trial information was targeted to, how incentives were used and if they achieved their recruitment targets.

methodsFor this cross-sectional evaluation, we searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials for paediatric trials published in 2012 and randomly selected 300 that reported on outcomes for participants aged ≤21 years. We collected data on consent and recruitment procedures for each trial and undertook descriptive analyses in SPSS statistics V.23.

resultsAll but one trial (99.7%) used a standard recruitment strategy. Most (92%) trials reported that consent was obtained but only 13% reported who obtained consent. Two-thirds (65%) of trials included school-aged participants, and of these 68% reported obtaining assent. Half (50%) of the trials reported who the trial information was targeted to. Most trials (75%) of school-aged participants targeted information towards children or children and their parents. Fourteen per cent of trials reported using incentives, half (50%) of which were in the form of compensation. Only 48% of trials reported sufficient data to determine if their recruitment targets were achieved. Of these, 70% achieved their targets.

conclusionsNotable reporting shortcomings included: how families were recruited into the trial, who obtained consent and/or assent and how, who trial information was directed to, whether incentives were used and sufficient data to determine if the recruitment target was achieved. Forthcoming paediatric-specific reporting standards may improve reporting in this priority area. Our data provide a baseline for ongoing monitoring of the state of the research.

Indexed as

data collectiongeneral paediatrics

Identifiers

PMID30555937
PMCPMC6267313

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
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.