ReviewTranslational and clinical pharmacology2018
Regulatory innovation for expansion of indications and pediatric drug development.
Review in Translational and clinical pharmacology, 2018. 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.
- The Utilization of Externally Sourced Data and Data Collected and Analyzed from Previously Completed Studies Using Modelling and Simulation and Other Methodologies to Support Pediatric-Focused Regulatory Commitments.Therapeutic innovation & regulatory science · 2026Review
- Real-world evidence to support regulatory submissions: A landscape review and assessment of use cases.Clinical and translational science · 2024Review
- Status of Medications Prescribed for Psychiatric Disorders in Korean Pediatric and Adolescent Patients.Children (Basel, Switzerland) · 2022Article
- The Current Status of European and National Financial Sources for Clinical Research and Their Impact on Paediatric Non-commercial Clinical Trials: A Case Study of the Czech Republic.Therapeutic innovation & regulatory science · 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
1 author at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
For regulatory approval of a new drug, the most preferred and reliable source of evidence would be randomized controlled trials (RCT). However, a great number of drugs, being developed as well as already marketed and being used, usually lack proper indications for children. It is imperative to develop properly evaluated drugs for children. And expanding the use of already approved drugs for other indications will benefit patients and the society. Nevertheless, to get an approval for expansion of indications, most often with off-label experiences, for drugs that have been approved or for the development of pediatric indications, either during or after completing the main drug development, conducting RCTs may not be the only, if not right, way to take. Extrapolation strategies and modelling & simulation for pediatric drug development are paving the road to the better approval scheme. Making the use of data sources other than RCT such as EHR and claims data in ways that improve the efficiency and validity of the results (e.g., randomized pragmatic trial and randomized registry trial) has been the topic of great interest all around the world. Regulatory authorities should adopt new methodologies for regulatory approval processes to adapt to the changes brought by increasing availability of big and real world data utilizing new tools of technological advancement.
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.