ArticleHormone research in paediatrics2026
Preferences for (Dis)Continuing Growth Hormone Treatment at Mid-Puberty in Patients with Transient Idiopathic Isolated Growth Hormone Deficiency: A Qualitative Analysis.
Article in Hormone research in paediatrics, 2026. 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.
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
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionThe SEENEZ GH trial found no difference in near adult height (NAH) between patients with isolated idiopathic growth hormone deficiency (IIGHD) who continued or discontinued recombinant human growth hormone (rhGH) at mid-puberty after a sufficient GH retest. These findings support revision of the current guideline to recommend rhGH discontinuation for patients with a sufficient mid-pubertal retest result. To enable successful adaptation, insight into stakeholder preferences, perceived (dis)advantages, and factors influencing guideline implementation is crucial.
methodsA qualitative study was conducted based on 25 interviews involving 26 participants, including patients with transient IIGHD, their parents, healthcare professionals, and organizational stakeholders. Participants were asked to assume there was no clinical difference between (dis)continuing rhGH. Interviews combined a structured impact analysis tool with open-ended questions.
resultsPatients and parents generally preferred rhGH continuation, mainly for reassurance and reduced uncertainty. Patients valued discontinuation for reducing injection-related pain, whereas continuation aligned with personal treatment goals. Parents perceived rhGH continuation as reducing uncertainty. Healthcare professionals and organizational stakeholders favored discontinuation, citing cost-effectiveness, reduced workload, and ethical concerns about overtreatment; lower healthcare costs were the main perceived advantage. Facilitators for guideline revision included positive communication, clear and timely information, and sufficient implementation resources. Barriers included old habits among clinicians, limited awareness of new evidence among stakeholders, and a lack of strong drivers for change.
conclusionPatients and parents favored continuing rhGH, whereas professionals and organizational stakeholders preferred discontinuation. Given comparable NAH outcomes after a sufficient mid-pubertal GH retest, successful guideline revision requires clear communication, adequate resources, and involvement of patients and parents.
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.