ArticleJournal of clinical and translational science2024
Navigating the challenges of initiating pediatric device trials - a case study.
Article in Journal of clinical and translational science, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Lack of children in public medical imaging data points to growing age bias in biomedical AI.Research square · 2025Article
- Lack of children in public medical imaging data points to growing age bias in biomedical AI.medRxiv : the preprint server for health sciences · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Introduction: Pediatric medical devices lag behind adult devices due to economic barriers, smaller patient populations, changing anatomy and physiology of patients, regulatory hurdles, and especially difficulties in executing clinical trials. We investigated the requirements, challenges, associated timeline, and costs of conducting a multi-site pivotal clinical trial for a Class II pediatric physiologic monitoring device. Methods: This case study focused on the negotiation of clinical trial agreements (CTAs), budgets, and Institutional Review Board (IRB) processing times for a pediatric device trial. We identified key factors contributing to delays in clinical trial execution and potential best practices to expedite the process while maintaining safety, ethics, and efficacy. Results: The total time from site contact to first patient enrollment averaged 14 months. CTA and budget negotiations were the most time-consuming processes, averaging nearly 10 and 9 months, respectively. Reliance and local IRB processing also contributed significantly to the timeline, overall adding an average of 6.5 months across institutions. Nearly half of all costs were devoted to regulatory oversight. The COVID-19 pandemic caused significant slowdowns and delays at multiple institutions during study enrollment. Despite these pandemic-induced delays, it is important to note that the issues and themes highlighted remain relevant and have post-pandemic applicability. Conclusions: Our case study results underscore the importance of establishing efficient and standardized processing of CTAs, budget negotiations, and use of reliance IRBs to expedite clinical trial execution for pediatric devices. The findings also highlight the need for a national clinical trials network to streamline the clinical trial process.
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.