SynthesisJAMA network open2026
Melatonin Use in Young Children: A Systematic Review.
Synthesis in JAMA network open, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Current and Emerging Therapies for Pediatric Sleep Disorders: A Narrative Review.Neurology and therapy · 2026Review
- Pharmacokinetics of Intravenous Melatonin in Preschool-Aged Pediatric Surgical Patients.Paediatric anaesthesia · 2026Article
- Life-Course Programming of Kidney Disease: Roles of Gut Microbiota Dysbiosis and Oxidative Stress.Antioxidants (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
15 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Importance: Melatonin is the leading cause of unsupervised medication exposure and overdose in emergency departments for young children (aged 0-6 years). Existing literature has documented the benefits of melatonin in older children (aged 7-18 years) with neurologic conditions but has yet to examine young children. Objective: To examine the long-term outcomes (safety and effectiveness) associated with melatonin use in young children. Evidence Review: Nine databases, including Ovid MEDLINE, Embase, and Web of Science; 2 clinical trial registries; existing subject matter systematic reviews; and forward and backward citation of included articles were reviewed from inception to February 26, 2025, to identify observational and interventional studies that investigated the safety and effectiveness of exogenous melatonin on sleep in young children. Methodological quality was assessed using the Downs and Black Checklist. Findings: Nineteen articles representing 12 observational studies, 6 experimental studies (hereafter, trials), and 1 protocol published between 2000 and 2025 were included. The observational studies reported on 9 years (range, 3-21 years) of data from Nordic or Australian registries or poisoning data from the US and Portugal. The trials included 167 young children with neurologic conditions and lasted a mean of 12.7 weeks (range, 2 weeks to 2 years). For safety, observational studies documented rises in prescribing practices, extended use, and overdoses, especially in the past decade. For effectiveness, trials provided evidence for improved sleep onset in young children with neurologic conditions (eg, autism spectrum disorder), with few adverse events. However, data regarding long-term outcomes for other behaviors and health outcomes were absent, and efficacy data were not available for children with typical development. The methodological quality of included studies was poor for 3 studies, fair for 9, and good for 6. Conclusions and Relevance: These findings suggest a global rise in prescriptions without efficacy data on use in children with typical development, underscoring the need to identify strategies to prevent and reduce melatonin use in young children, as well as to improve adherence by pediatricians to evidence-based practice standards.
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.