ArticleFrontiers in pediatrics2026
A literature-informed Delphi framework for pediatric medication science books.
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 construct a quantifiable indicator system for evaluating pediatric pharmacology knowledge and to provide a scientific basis for writing popular science books on pediatric medication. Methods: From June to July 2025, a systematic literature search was performed to conduct a general systematic review of pediatric medication science popularization content. Literature information was integrated via thematic synthesis to formulate a preliminary questionnaire. Experts from tertiary hospitals and colleges of pharmacy across eastern, central and western China were selected, and a single-round modified Delphi method was carried out by distributing and collecting questionnaires through an online survey platform (Wenjuanxing). A dual-threshold criterion was applied for indicator screening: items with a mean importance score ≥ 4.0 and a coefficient of variation (CV) ≤ 25% were directly included. For items failing to meet the above criteria, the research team conducted joint deliberation combined with experts' open-ended qualitative feedback, to determine whether the items would be excluded, or revised and merged into relevant retained items. Results: A total of 3,520 studies were initially retrieved, yielding 68 included studies that generated 11 first-level and 54 s-level indicators. Of 28 distributed questionnaires, 26 were valid, yielding a valid response rate of 92.86%. The mean importance scores for the 11 first-level indicators ranged from 3.49 to 4.67, with all CVs ≤25% (11.89%-22.53%). Indicators with an intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC) at a moderate or higher level accounted for 90.9%. Ultimately, 6 first-level indicators met the dual-threshold criteria and were retained. " Conclusion: The pediatric medication knowledge framework indicator system established based on the systematic literature review and single-round modified Delphi consultation has a high degree of expert consensus and a clear screening process, with sound authority, scientificity and operability, providing a theoretical basis and practical reference for the content design of general pediatric medication science popularization books.
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.