ArticlePharmaceutical medicine2024
Authorized or Off-Label Use? A Structured Analysis of Summaries of Product Characteristics with Regard to Authorization in Pediatrics.
Article in Pharmaceutical medicine, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed, 1 citations in OpenAlex.
- Three-Dimensionally Printed Paediatric Medicines: Formulation, Process, and Regulatory Considerations.Pharmaceutics · 2025Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeThe Summary of Product Characteristics (SmPC) is required to provide unambiguous information on the authorized use of a medicinal product. Therefore, we performed a structured analysis of the information provided for pediatric patients in current SmPCs.
methodsIn the German SmPC of the medicinal products of 452 active substances, we analyzed for each of the listed indications whether information on pediatric use was available in Sects. 4.1-4.4 of the SmPC and, if so, whether it was unambiguous. Information was considered unambiguous if it indicated an exact age- or weight-related specification. The analysis also considered the type of marketing authorization and the date of marketing authorization, either before or after the Pediatric Regulation 2007 came into force.
resultsAmong the 30,354 identified indications in 8464 SmPCs, unambiguous information was found for 72.4% (21,974/30,354) of the indications. Of these, 45.4% (9967/21,974) disclosed a contraindication for the entire population under 18 years of age. The proportion of unambiguous information was higher for medicinal products with centralized marketing authorization (86.5% [1449/1676]) than for those with a national one (71.6% [20,525/28,678]; p < 0.001). A higher proportion of unambiguous information was found for the marketing authorization period 2007-2021 compared with 1996-2006 (1996-2006: 63.8% [7466/11,694]; 2007-2021: 82.1% [12,349/15,040]; p < 0.001).
conclusionFor about a quarter of all indications, no or only ambiguous information was available for pediatric patients. The measures initiated in recent years to increase pediatric-specific information in SmPCs should be intensified in order to improve drug safety in children and adolescents.
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.