Evidence map›Paper›PMID 31206076›Full record

ArticleBMJ paediatrics open2019

Reporting of data monitoring committees and adverse events in paediatric trials: a descriptive analysis.

Allison Gates, Patrina Caldwell, Sarah Curtis, Leonila Dans, Ricardo M Fernandes, Lisa Hartling, Lauren E Kelly, Ben Vandermeer, Katrina Williams, Kerry Woolfall and 1 more

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in BMJ paediatrics open, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
6citing 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

6 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Fake news and fake research: Why meta-research matters more than ever.Journal of paediatrics and child health · 2020
    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

11 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, 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 FernandesFaculdade 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.
Ben VandermeerAlberta Research Centre for Health Evidence, University of Alberta, Edmonton, Alberta, Canada.
Katrina WilliamsDevelopmental Medicine, Royal Children's Hospital Melbourne, Parkville, Victoria, Australia.
Kerry WoolfallDepartment of Psychological Sciences, 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

objectivesFor 300 paediatric trials, we evaluated the reporting of: a data monitoring committee (DMC); interim analyses, stopping rules and early stopping; and adverse events and harm-related endpoints.

methodsFor this cross-sectional evaluation, we randomly selected 300 paediatric trials published in 2012 from the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials. We collected data on the reporting of a DMC; interim analyses, stopping rules and early stopping; and adverse events and harm-related endpoints. We reported the findings descriptively and stratified by trial characteristics.

resultsEighty-five (28%) of the trials investigated drugs, and 18% (n=55/300) reported a DMC. The reporting of a DMC was more common among multicentre than single centre trials (n=41/132, 31% vs n=14/139, 10%, p<0.001) and industry-sponsored trials compared with those sponsored by other sources (n=16/50, 32% vs n=39/250, 16%, p=0.009). Trials that reported a DMC enrolled more participants than those that did not (median [range]): 224 (10-60480) vs 91 (10-9528) (p<0.001). Only 25% of these trials reported interim analyses, and 42% reported stopping rules. Less than half (n=143/300, 48%) of trials reported on adverse events, and 72% (n=215/300) reported on harm-related endpoints. Trials that reported a DMC compared with those that did not were more likely to report adverse events (n=43/55, 78% vs 100/245, 41%, p<0.001) and harm-related endpoints (n=52/55, 95% vs. 163/245, 67%, p<0.001). Only 32% of drug trials reported a DMC; 18% and 19% did not report on adverse events or harm-related endpoints, respectively.

conclusionsThe reporting of a DMC was infrequent, even among drug trials. Few trials reported stopping rules or interim analyses. Reporting of adverse events and harm-related endpoints was suboptimal.

Indexed as

data collectionethicsgeneral paediatrics

Identifiers

PMID31206076
PMCPMC6542427

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.