ArticleCardiovascular and interventional radiology2023
Is There Really No Kit for Kids? Quantification of Manufacturer Recommendations Regarding Paediatric Use For High-Volume IR Devices.
Article in Cardiovascular and interventional radiology, 2023. 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, 5 citations in OpenAlex.
- Paediatric Interventional Radiology: Growing Up and Looking Ahead.Cardiovascular and interventional radiology · 2026Article
- Image-guided ablation for pediatric malignant solid tumors: a review of modalities, evidence, and clinical applications.Pediatric radiology · 2026Review
- Pediatric Renovascular Hypertension: Diagnosis and Management.Seminars in interventional radiology · 2025Review
- Percutaneous nephrostomy in infants: a 20-year single-center experienceDiagnostic and interventional radiology (Ankara, Turkey) · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
aimsThe development of paediatric specific devices appears to lag behind advancements in our specialty. Children could therefore be limited in the number of procedures available to them unless we continue to use and modify adult devices 'off-label'. This study quantifies the proportion of IR devices in which paediatric use is indicated by the manufacturer. MATERIALS &
methodsCross-sectional analysis of device instructions for use (IFU), assessing inclusion of children was performed. Vascular access, biopsy, drainage, and enteral feeding devices, from 28 companies who sponsored BSIR, CIRSE and SIR (2019-2020) as determined by the meeting websites, were included. Devices for which the IFU was not available were excluded.
results190 (106 vascular access, 40 biopsy, 39 drainage and 5 feeding) devices with IFU's from 18 medical device manufacturers were assessed. 49/190 (26%) IFU's referenced children. 6/190 (3%) explicitly stated the device could be used in children and 1/190 (0.5%) explicitly stated the device was not for use in children. 55/190 (29%) implied they could be used in children through caution notes. The most common caution was a reference to the size of the device that could be accommodated in a child (26/190, 14%).
conclusionsThis data identifies an unmet need for paediatric IR devices and could be used to support the future development of devices intended for the children we treat. There is potentially a larger proportion (29%) of devices suitable for paediatric use, but which lack manufacturer explicit support. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level 2c, Cross-Sectional study.
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.