Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33906929›Full record

ArticlePediatrics2021

Prospect of Direct Benefit in Pediatric Trials: Practical Challenges and Potential Solutions.

Melanie Bhatnagar, Sarah Sheehan, Isha Sharma, Gerri Baer, Dionna Green, Susan McCune, Steven Joffe, Donna Snyder

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Pediatrics, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 9 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
9citing papers in PubMed, 1 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

9 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Trial
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. A Pediatric Research Imperative: Addressing Neonates in Drug Development Through Understanding Neonatal Clinical Pharmacology.The journal of pediatric pharmacology and therapeutics : JPPT : the official journal of PPAG · 2025
    Article
  6. Article
  7. Review
  8. Review
  9. 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

8 authors.

Melanie BhatnagarFood and Drug Administration, Silver Spring, Maryland.
Sarah SheehanDuke-Margolis Center for Health Policy, Washington, District of Columbia; and sarah.sheehan@duke.edu.
Isha SharmaDuke-Margolis Center for Health Policy, Washington, District of Columbia; and.
Gerri BaerFood and Drug Administration, Silver Spring, Maryland.
Dionna GreenFood and Drug Administration, Silver Spring, Maryland.
Susan McCuneFood and Drug Administration, Silver Spring, Maryland.
Steven JoffeDivision of Medical Ethics, Department of Medical Ethics and Health Policy, Perelman School of Medicine, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania.
Donna SnyderFood and Drug Administration, Silver Spring, Maryland.

Funding

Support of Regulatory Research to FDA Commitment under the 2012 PDUFA ActU19FD004971 · FDA · DUKE UNIVERSITY · PI DANIEL, GREGORY W · 2013 to 2017
$3.1M
FDA HHS U19 FD004971Intramural FDA HHS FD999999
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Clinical research in pediatric patients is necessary to develop safe and effective medicines for children. US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) human subject protection regulations (21 Code of Federal Regulations 50, subpart D) require that, with limited exceptions, research in children that exceeds a defined level of risk must offer a prospect of direct benefit to the individual child that is sufficient to justify those risks. Growing attention to the merits of initiating pediatric clinical trials earlier in the drug and biological product development process has led the FDA to look more closely at the meaning of the regulatory term prospect of direct benefit. In collaboration with the FDA, the Duke-Margolis Center for Health Policy convened a workshop with leading experts in the fields of biomedical ethics, pediatric clinical research, and pediatric product development, as well as patient representatives, to discuss the FDA's approach to characterizing prospect of direct benefit in the context of scientific advances in product development. Workshop topics included the extrapolation of adult efficacy data to children, use of nonclinical models of disease, use of modeling and simulation to support pediatric dosing, and reliance on biomarkers and surrogate end points in clinical research. Discussion from the workshop is provided herein to communicate the challenges that investigators, industry sponsors, regulators, and institutional review boards face when evaluating pediatric research and to outline several approaches to maximize prospect of direct benefit, minimize unnecessary risks and burden, and facilitate timely access to safe and effective medicines for children.

Indexed as

PediatricsBiomedical ResearchChildClinical Trials as TopicHumans

Identifiers

PMID33906929
PMCPMC8262097

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceTDM
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.