ReviewTherapeutics and clinical risk management2019
Clinical efficacy and safety of anticholinergic therapies in pediatric patients.
Review in Therapeutics and clinical risk management, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed, 4 citations in OpenAlex.
- Targeting mitochondrial function as a potential therapeutic approach for allergic asthma.Inflammation research : official journal of the European Histamine Research Society ... [et al.] · 2025Review
- Maintenance Therapy for Children and Adolescents with Asthma: Guidelines and Recommendations from the Emilia-Romagna Asthma (ERA) Study Group.Journal of clinical medicine · 2023Article
- G Protein-Coupled Receptors in Asthma Therapy: Pharmacology and Drug Action.Pharmacological reviews · 2020Review
- Future perspectives of anticholinergics for the treatment of asthma in adults and children.Therapeutics and clinical risk management · 2019Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
1 author at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The burden of uncontrolled asthma in children and adolescents is high. Treatment options for pediatric patients (aged under 18 years) with asthma are largely influenced by the Global Initiative for Asthma recommendations. Algorithms for adolescents (12-18 years) and adults are identical, but recommendations for children aged under 6 years and 6-11 years differ. Although the goals of treatment for pediatric patients with asthma are similar to those for adults, relatively few new therapies have been approved for this patient population within the last decade. Designing clinical trials involving children presents several challenges, notably that children are often less able to perform lung function tests, and traditional endpoints used in clinical trials with adults, such as forced expiratory volume in 1 second, asthma exacerbations and questionnaires, have limitations associated with their use in children. There are also ethical considerations related to the performance of longer placebo-controlled exacerbation trials. This review considers additional clinical endpoints to those traditionally reported, including forced expiratory flow at 25%-75% of forced vital capacity, which may help shed light on which treatments are most effective for use in pediatric patients with asthma. The pros and cons of specific and potentially clinically relevant endpoints are considered, along with device considerations and patient preferences that may enhance adherence and quality of life. Recent advances in the management of children and adolescents, including the US Food and Drug Administration and European Medicines Agency approval of tiotropium in patients with asthma aged 6 years and over, are also discussed.
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.