Trial reportBMJ paediatrics open2023
Use of a paediatric advice line for parents of infants recruited to a randomised controlled trial.
Trial report in BMJ paediatrics open, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed, 0 citations in OpenAlex.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
18 authors at 7 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThis study aims to describe the use of a paediatric advice line (PAL) provided to parents whose infants were recruited to a large randomised controlled trial (RCT), including the number and types of medical concerns addressed, seasonal variability and call outcomes. Additionally, sociodemographic characteristics of the parents and children of those parents who used the PAL are compared with those who did not.
methodsProspective cohort of 1246 children nested in the Melbourne Infant Study: BCG for Allergy and Infection Reduction (MIS BAIR) RCT. All MIS BAIR participants were offered access to the PAL. Data were collected over the initial 2 years of a 5-year follow-up. Data were analysed using χ
resultsThe PAL was used by 230 (18.5%) participants, who made a total of 586 calls during the 2-year study period. The reasons for calling the PAL were dermatological (24%); gastrointestinal (18%); disturbances in feeding, sleeping and crying (14%); respiratory (7%); and developmental/neurological (6%). Analysis revealed that those who used the PAL were more likely to be first-time parents (OR 1.4, 95% CI 1.1 to 1.9) and mothers who hold a university degree (OR 3.3, 95% CI 1.3 to 8.4). PAL costs were minimal and comprised 15 clinicians with paediatric experience.
conclusionsA cost-effective PAL service for clinical trial participants was used appropriately by parents for relatively minor concerns and may have a role in trials to promote participant engagement and reduce demand for other health services.
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.