ArticleFrontiers in pediatrics2026
Comparison of efficacy and safety between long-acting growth hormone and short-acting growth hormone in isolated growth hormone deficiency: a systematic review and meta-analysis of 16 randomized controlled trials involving 2,435 pediatric patients.
Article in Frontiers in pediatrics, 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
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Objective: To comprehensively compare the efficacy and safety of long-acting human growth hormone (LAGH) preparations with conventional short-acting daily growth hormone (SA-GH) in children with isolated growth hormone deficiency (GHD), and explore potential differences across four distinct LAGH platforms through subgroup analyses. Methods: A systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) published up to September 2025 was conducted. Five electronic databases [PubMed, Cochrane Library, Web of Science, WanFang Data, and China National Knowledge Infrastructure (CNKI)] were systematically searched without language restrictions. Eligible studies included patients aged <18 years with confirmed GHD (peak GH <10 ng·mL Results: A total of 16 RCTs involving 2,435 children (median follow-up: 52 weeks) were included. Overall, compared with SA-GH, LAGH resulted in a modest but statistically significant improvement in first-year Ht-SDS (mean difference [MD]: 0.08; 95% credible interval [CrI]: 0.04-0.11). Numerically, LAGH showed superior HV-SDS compared with SA-GH (MD: 0.85; 95% CrI: -0.39 to 2.09), an effect entirely driven by the PEG-LAGH subgroup (MD: 4.35; 95% CrI: 3.78-4.92). IGF-1 SDS was consistently higher in the LAGH group (MD: 0.51; 95% CrI: 0.21-0.80). AE rates did not differ significantly between groups (LAGH: 31%-46% vs. SA-GH: 35%-50%); the PEG-LAGH subgroup exhibited the lowest AE incidence (31.1%). Conclusions: Among children with isolated GHD, LAGH represents the preferred platform, offering both superior first-year height velocity and acceptable safety. In contrast, newer prodrug or albumin-binding LAGH formulations provide injection convenience but lack superior growth efficacy.
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.