Controlled trials in children: quantity, methodological quality and descriptive characteristics of pediatric controlled trials published 1948-2006

A Decade of Efforts to Add Value to Child Health Research Practices

OBJECTIVE

To identify practices that add value to improve the design, conduct, and reporting of child health research and reduce research waste.

STUDY DESIGN

In order to categorize the contributions of members of Standards for Research (StaR) in Child Health network, we developed a novel Child Health Improving Research Practices (CHIRP) framework comprised of 5 domains meant to counteract avoidable child health research waste and improve quality: 1) address research questions relevant to children, their families, clinicians, and researchers; 2) apply appropriate research design, conduct and analysis; 3) ensure efficient research oversight and regulation; 4) Provide accessible research protocols and reports; and 5) develop unbiased and usable research reports, including 17 responsible research practice recommendations. All child health research relevant publications by the 48 original StaR standards' authors over the last decade were identified, and main topic areas were categorized using this framework.

RESULTS

A total of 247 publications were included in the final sample: 100 publications (41%) in domain 1 (3 recommendations), 77 publications (31%) in domain 2 (3), 35 publications (14%) in domain 3 (4), 20 publications (8%) in domain 4 (4), and 15 publications (6%) in domain 5 (3). We identified readily implementable "responsible" research practices to counter child health research waste and improve quality, especially in the areas of patients and families' engagement throughout the research process, developing Core Outcome Sets, and addressing ethics and regulatory oversight issues.

CONCLUSION

While most of the practices are readily implementable, increased awareness of methodological issues and wider guideline uptake is needed to improve child health research. The CHIRP Framework can be used to guide responsible research practices that add value to child health research.

Methodological Quality and Risk of Bias Assessment of Cardiovascular Disease Research: Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials Published in 2017

Background

All randomized-controlled trials (RCTs) are required to follow high methodological standards. In this study, we aimed to assess the methodological quality of published cardiovascular clinical research trials in a representative sample of RCTs published in 2017.

Methods

Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials was used to identify cardiovascular clinical research trials with adult participants published in 2017. Overall, 250 (10%) RCTs were randomly selected from a total of 2,419 studies. Data on general trial characteristics were extracted and the risk of bias (RoB) was determined.

Results

Overall, 86% of RCTs have reported at least one statistically significant result, with the primary outcome significant in 69%, treatment favored in 55%, and adverse events reported in 68%. Less than one-third (29%) of trials were overall low RoB, while the other two-thirds were rated unclear (40%) or with high RoB (31%). Sequence generation, allocation concealment, and selective reporting were the domains most often rated with high RoB. Drug trials were more likely to have low RoB than non-drug trials. Significant differences were found in RoB for the allocation concealment and blinding of participants and personnel between industry-funded and non-industry-funded trials, with industry-funded trials more often rated at low RoB.

Conclusion

Almost two-thirds of RCTs in the field of cardiovascular disease (CVD) research, were at high or unclear RoB, indicating a need for more rigorous trial planning and conduct. Prospective trial registration is a factor predicting a lower risk of bias.

Correlation Between National Institutes of Health Funding for Pediatric Research and Pediatric Disease Burden in the US

IMPORTANCE

The US National Institutes of Health (NIH) is the largest government funding source for biomedical research globally. Burden of disease is one of the factors considered by the NIH in making funding allocations, though it is not known how funding patterns are associated with disease burden for pediatric conditions.

OBJECTIVE

To determine the correlation between NIH funding and disease burden across pediatric conditions.

DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS

This cross-sectional study evaluates NIH grants funding pediatric research from 2015 to 2018 in the US. Pediatric grants were classified according to disease categories studied. Disease burden for each category was determined using measures from the Institute of Health Metrics and Evaluation and hospitalization data from the 2016 Kids' Inpatient Database.

MAIN OUTCOME AND MEASURE

Correlation between NIH funding and pediatric disease burden using Spearman rank order coefficients and predicted amounts of disease-specific funding based on disease burden estimated from linear regression models.

RESULTS

This study analyzed 14 060 disease-specific pediatric grants awarded by the NIH from 2015 to 2018 in the US. Annual funding for disease categories ranged from $0 to $382 849 631. Funding for pediatric research was correlated with pediatric disability-adjusted life-years (DALYs), deaths, years lived with disability, and years of life lost (r, 0.56-0.63; P < 0.001 for all measures). There was also a correlation between funding and hospital-based metrics, including hospital days, number of hospital admissions, and hospital charges (r, 0.67-0.69; P < .001 for all measures). Eight disease categories received greater than $500 million more than predicted levels relative to DALYs, while 5 disease categories were funded more than $50 million less than predicted levels. Based on predicted levels of funding, congenital birth defects; endocrine, metabolic, blood, and immune disorders; and HIV/AIDS were the most overfunded categories relative to DALYs and hospital days. Conditions identified as most underfunded differed depending on use of DALYs or hospital days in estimating predicted funding levels.

CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE

NIH funding for pediatric research was correlated with pediatric disease burden in the US with variable correlation based on the disease metric applied. There was substantial overfunding and underfunding of certain conditions. Ongoing evaluation of pediatric funding patterns using a complementary set of disease measures may help inform and prioritize pediatric research funding.

Characteristics and practices of school-based cluster randomised controlled trials for improving health outcomes in pupils in the United Kingdom: a methodological systematic review

Background

Cluster randomised trials (CRTs) are increasingly used to evaluate non-pharmacological interventions for improving child health. Although methodological challenges of CRTs are well documented, the characteristics of school-based CRTs with pupil health outcomes have not been systematically described. Our objective was to describe methodological characteristics of these studies in the United Kingdom (UK).

Methods

MEDLINE was systematically searched from inception to 30^th June 2020. Included studies used the CRT design in schools and measured primary outcomes on pupils. Study characteristics were described using descriptive statistics.

Results

Of 3138 articles identified, 64 were included. CRTs with pupil health outcomes have been increasingly used in the UK school setting since the earliest included paper was published in 1993; 37 (58%) studies were published after 2010. Of the 44 studies that reported information, 93% included state-funded schools. Thirty six (56%) were exclusively in primary schools and 24 (38%) exclusively in secondary schools. Schools were randomised in 56 studies, classrooms in 6 studies, and year groups in 2 studies. Eighty percent of studies used restricted randomisation to balance cluster-level characteristics between trial arms, but few provided justification for their choice of balancing factors. Interventions covered 11 different health areas; 53 (83%) included components that were necessarily administered to entire clusters. The median (interquartile range) number of clusters and pupils recruited was 31.5 (21 to 50) and 1308 (604 to 3201), respectively. In half the studies, at least one cluster dropped out. Only 26 (41%) studies reported the intra-cluster correlation coefficient (ICC) of the primary outcome from the analysis; this was often markedly different to the assumed ICC in the sample size calculation. The median (range) ICC for school clusters was 0.028 (0.0005 to 0.21).

Conclusions

The increasing pool of school-based CRTs examining pupil health outcomes provides methodological knowledge and highlights design challenges. Data from these studies should be used to identify the best school-level characteristics for balancing the randomisation. Better information on the ICC of pupil health outcomes is required to aid the planning of future CRTs. Improved reporting of the recruitment process will help to identify barriers to obtaining representative samples of schools.

Common Methodological Problems in Randomized Controlled Trials of Preventive Interventions

Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) are often considered the gold standard in evaluating whether intervention results are in line with causal claims of beneficial effects. However, given that poor design and incorrect analysis may lead to biased outcomes, simply employing an RCT is not enough to say an intervention "works." This paper applies a subset of the Society for Prevention Research (SPR) Standards of Evidence for Efficacy, Effectiveness, and Scale-up Research, with a focus on internal validity (making causal inferences) to determine the degree to which RCTs of preventive interventions are well-designed and analyzed, and whether authors provide a clear description of the methods used to report their study findings. We conducted a descriptive analysis of 851 RCTs published from 2010 to 2020 and reviewed by the Blueprints for Healthy Youth Development web-based registry of scientifically proven and scalable interventions. We used Blueprints' evaluation criteria that correspond to a subset of SPR's standards of evidence. Only 22% of the sample satisfied important criteria for minimizing biases that threaten internal validity. Overall, we identified an average of 1-2 methodological weaknesses per RCT. The most frequent sources of bias were problems related to baseline non-equivalence (i.e., differences between conditions at randomization) or differential attrition (i.e., differences between completers versus attritors or differences between study conditions that may compromise the randomization). Additionally, over half the sample (51%) had missing or incomplete tests to rule out these potential sources of bias. Most preventive intervention RCTs need improvement in rigor to permit causal inference claims that an intervention is effective. Researchers also must improve reporting of methods and results to fully assess methodological quality. These advancements will increase the usefulness of preventive interventions by ensuring the credibility and usability of RCT findings.

Characteristics and practices of school-based cluster randomised controlled trials for improving health outcomes in pupils in the UK: a systematic review protocol

INTRODUCTION

Cluster randomised trials (CRTs) are studies in which groups (clusters) of participants rather than the individuals themselves are randomised to trial arms. CRTs are becoming increasingly relevant for evaluating interventions delivered in school settings for improving the health of children. Schools are a convenient setting for health interventions targeted at children and the CRT design respects the clustered structure in schools (ie, pupils within classrooms/teachers within schools). Some of the methodological challenges of CRTs, such as ethical considerations for enrolment of children into trials and how best to handle the analysis of data from participants (pupils) that change clusters (schools), may be more salient for the school setting. A better understanding of the characteristics and methodological considerations of school-based CRTs of health interventions would inform the design of future similar studies. To our knowledge, this is the only systematic review to focus specifically on the characteristics and methodological practices of CRTs delivered in schools to evaluate interventions for improving health outcomes in pupils in the UK.

METHODS AND ANALYSIS

We will search for CRTs published from inception to 30 June 2020 inclusively indexed in MEDLINE (Ovid). We will identify relevant articles through title and abstract screening, and subsequent full-text screening for eligibility against predefined inclusion criteria. Disagreements will be resolved through discussion. Two independent reviewers will extract data for each study using a prepiloted data extraction form. Findings will be summarised using descriptive statistics and graphs.

ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION

This methodological systematic review does not require ethical approval as only secondary data extracted from papers will be analysed and the data are not linked to individual participants. After completion of the systematic review, the data will be analysed, and the findings disseminated through peer-reviewed publications and scientific meetings.

PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER

CRD42020201792.

Publication Trends of Pediatric and Adult Randomized Controlled Trials in General Medical Journals, 2005-2018: A Citation Analysis

Policy has been developed to promote the conduct of high-quality pediatric randomized controlled trials (RCTs). Whether these strategies have influenced publication trends in high-impact journals is unknown. We aim to evaluate characteristics, citation patterns, and publication trends of pediatric RCTs published in general medical journals (GMJs) compared with adult RCTs over a 13-year period. Studies were identified using Medline, and impact metrics were collected from Web of Science and Scopus. All RCTs published from 2005–2018 in 7 GMJs with the highest impact factors were identified for analysis. A random sample of matched pediatric and adult RCTs were assessed for publication characteristics, academic and non-academic citation. Citations were counted from publication until June 2019. Among 4146 RCTs, 2794 (67.3%) enrolled adults, 591 (14.2%) enrolled children, and 761 RCTs (18.3%) enrolled adult and pediatric patients. Adult RCTs published in GMJs grew by 5.1 publications per year (95% CI: 3.3–6.9), while the number of pediatric RCTs did not show significant change (−0.4 RCTs/year, 95% CI: −1.4–0.6). Adult RCTs were cited more than pediatric RCTs (median(IQR): 29.9 (68.5–462.8) citations/year vs. 13.2 (6.8–24.9) citations/year; p < 0.001); however, social media attention was similar (median(IQR) Altmetric Attention Score: 37 (13.75–133.8) vs. 26 (6.2–107.5); p = 0.25). Despite policies which may facilitate conduct of pediatric RCTs, the publishing gap in high-impact GMJs is widening.

Trial Registration and Outcome Reporting in Child and Pediatric Psychology: A Systematic Review

OBJECTIVE

To examine rate of registration for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) published in the Journal of Pediatric Psychology (JPP) and Journal of Clinical Child & Adolescent Psychology (JCCAP). Secondary aims were to investigate associations between trial characteristics and registration status and compare registered and published primary outcomes.

METHODS

RCTs published in JPP or JCCAP between January 1, 2007 and December 31, 2017 were included. Secondary analyses of previously published RCTs, meta-analytic, systematic, and narrative reviews, and articles reporting primary aims related to intervention acceptability, feasibility, and/or cost-effectiveness were excluded. Trial registration status, primary registered and published outcomes, dates of registration, participant enrollment and publication, sample size, and country where the trial was conducted were extracted from articles and trial registries.

RESULTS

Of 61 RCTs included, 48% were registered. Among registered trials, only 14% were registered before participant enrollment began. Most were registered late (i.e., retrospectively; 86%) in ClinicalTrials.gov (90%). Registration status did not differ based on journal, study sample size, or geographic region where the study was conducted. A greater proportion of trials published in 2013-2017 were registered (61%) relative to those published in 2007-2012 (32%), p = .03. Among registered trials, 57% had discrepancies between registered and published primary outcomes.

CONCLUSIONS

Findings reveal low rates of prospective registration and considerable risk for incomplete or selective outcome reporting among RCTs published in JPP and JCCAP. Coordinated efforts from all stakeholders involved in the conduct and reporting of clinical child and pediatric psychology research are needed to improve transparent reporting of clinical trials.

Knowledge Translation Strategies Used by Healthcare Professionals in Child Health Settings: An Updated Systematic Review

PROBLEM

Strategies assisting healthcare professionals to make evidence-based decisions are crucial for quality patient care and outcomes. To date, there is one systematic review (Albrecht et al., 2016) examining knowledge translation (KT) efforts in child health settings. This systematic review aims to provide an update on current evidence identifying KT interventions implementing research into child health settings.

ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA

Nine electronic databases were searched, restricted by date (2011-2018) and language (English). Eligibility included: 1) randomized controlled trials (RCT), controlled clinical trials (CCT), or controlled before-and-after (CBA) studies; 2) interventions implementing research into child health practice; and 3) outcomes were measured at the healthcare professional/process, patient, or economic level.

SAMPLE

Health care professionals working in child health settings.

RESULTS

48 studies (38 RCT, 7 CBA, 3 CCT) were included. Studies employed single (n = 34) and multiple (n = 14) interventions. The methodological quality of studies was moderate (n = 18), strong (n = 16) and weak (n = 14). Studies showing significant, positive effects included (n = 9) RCTs, (n = 3) CBAs and (n = 2) CCTs. These studies employed (n = 11) single KT interventions and (n = 3) multiple KT interventions. Interventions included educational (n = 6), reminders (n = 3), computerized decision supports (n = 2), multidisciplinary teams (n = 2) and financial and educational interventions combined (n = 1).

CONCLUSIONS

Effective KT strategies used by health care professionals in child health settings were found to be online education curriculums and computerized decision supports or reminders.

IMPLICATIONS

This review update serves as an up-to-date 'state of the science' on KT strategies used in pediatric health professionals' clinical practice, assessed by the most rigorous research designs.

Completeness of protocols for clinical trials in children submitted to ethics committees

AIM

Studies of published clinical trials involving children have shown frequent omissions in key aspects of design and conduct, but these problems may be artefactual and due to editorial processes and space limitations. To determine actual design and conduct, we analysed the completeness of key domains in trial protocols involving children submitted to Human Research Ethics Committees.

METHODS

The ethics committees of all eight children's hospitals in Australia were invited to participate. De-identified trial protocols submitted for review in 2012 were evaluated using a checklist derived from Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials, the Cochrane Risk of Bias Tool and Good Clinical Practice guidelines.

RESULTS

Four ethics committees agreed to participate, and 69 protocols were analysed. The domains almost always reported were clustered around the background and trial plan (planned interventions for each group (99%), specific objectives (97%) and scientific background (96%)). Risk-of-bias domains such as random sequence generation and blinding of participants were often reported (75-90%). Domains least reported were clustered around the statistical analysis plan (66%), specified intention-to-treat analysis (54%), the justification for the proposed trial based upon a systematic review (48%) and age-specific outcomes (48%).

CONCLUSIONS

Protocols of trials involving children assessed by ethics committees generally include details on background and basic design, but many key domains in trial design and conduct are not covered. Despite widespread recognition of how problems in the design and conduct of trials may lead to unreliable results, investigators still appear to be omitting key elements in trial protocols.

Comparison of the Quality of Pediatric Randomized Controlled Trials Published in Both Nursing and Medical Journals: Adherence to the CONSORT Statement

BACKGROUND

Nursing care should be based on scientific evidence. However, studies must be performed rigorously with accurate reporting for their findings to be applicable to practice. Since the body of scientific nursing literature is broad, the quality and validity of its findings should be regularly controlled and verified to ensure their application and their practical impact.

PURPOSE

To compare reporting quality of pediatric randomized controlled trial (RCT) articles in nursing and medical journals.

METHODS

Randomly selected articles were reviewed and scored to assess the number of CONSORT items that were adequately reported, generating a CONSORT score. The CONSORT scores for 28 items were compared between the two journal types.

RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

The CONSORT scores by journal type were not significantly different: (19.2 [16.2; 22] for medical journals and 19.5 [16.1; 21.5] for nursing journals, p = .77). The reporting of CONSORT items was poor for both journal types. However, there were two significant differences: item 19 (Declaration of all important harm or unintended effects, p = .0006) and item 23 (Registration number of the study, p = .0003), were reported more often in medical journals. The adherence of journals to the CONSORT statement and large sample size was associated with better quality of the reporting of studies.

CONCLUSIONS

Based on reporting quality, nursing studies have the same scientific credibility and rigor as medical studies in the pediatric field.

LINKING EVIDENCE TO ACTION

The findings of this study could help researchers improve the reporting of their studies and highlight the importance of reporting quality for future knowledge transfer and practical use. The quality of research and its reporting is necessary to improve knowledge transfer into practice.

The institutional development award states pediatric clinical trials network: building research capacity among the rural and medically underserved

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

The institutional development award (IDeA) program was created to increase the competitiveness of investigators in states with historically low success rates for National Institutes of Health (NIH) research funding applications. IDeA states have high numbers of rural and medically underserved residents with disproportionately high rates of infant mortality, obesity, and poverty. This program supports the development and expansion of research infrastructure and research activities in these states. The IDeA States Pediatric Clinical Trials Network (ISPCTN) is part of the environmental influences on child health outcomes program. Its purpose is to build research capacity within IDeA states and provide opportunities for children in IDeA states to participate in clinical trials. This review describes the current and future activities of the network.

RECENT FINDINGS

In its initial year, the ISPCTN created an online series on clinical trials, initiated participation in a study conducted by the pediatric trials network, and proposed two novel clinical trials for obese children. Capacity building and clinical trial implementation will continue in future years.

SUMMARY

The ISPCTN is uniquely poised to establish and support new pediatric clinical research programs in underserved populations, producing both short and long-term gains in the understanding of child health.

Reducing waste in pediatric clinical research

The importance of reducing waste and increasing value when conducting research has been emphasized by a series of articles published in the Lancet in 2014. A survey indicates that, one year later, these articles have not influenced how research is conducted. In this review, we explore four stages described by Moher et al. in research production that lead to waste. We show that all four stages including, questions relevant to users, appropriate design conduct and analysis, accessible full research, unbiased and usable reports, efficient research regulation and management of biomedical research are also producing an important waste in pediatric research. We conclude that methods to improve research quality and limit waste need to be implemented in pediatric research and recognized by authorities as a priority.

The Conduct and Reporting of Child Health Research: An Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials Published in 2012 and Evaluation of Change over 5 Years

OBJECTIVES

For child health randomized controlled trials (RCTs) published in 2012, we aimed to describe design and reporting characteristics and evaluate changes since 2007; assess the association between trial design and registration and risk of bias (RoB); and assess the association between RoB and effect size.

STUDY DESIGN

For 300 RCTs, we extracted design and reporting characteristics and assessed RoB. We assessed 5-year changes in design and reporting (based on 300 RCTs we had previously analyzed) using the Fisher exact test. We tested for associations between design and reporting characteristics and overall RoB and registration using the Fisher exact, Cochran-Armitage, Kruskal-Wallis, and Jonckheere-Terpstra tests. We pooled effect sizes and tested for differences by RoB using the χ² test for subgroups in meta-analysis.

RESULTS

The 2012 and 2007 RCTs differed with respect to many design and reporting characteristics. From 2007 to 2012, RoB did not change for random sequence generation and improved for allocation concealment (P < .001). Fewer 2012 RCTs were rated high overall RoB and more were rated unclear (P = .03). Only 7.3% of 2012 RCTs were rated low overall RoB. Trial registration doubled from 2007 to 2012 (23% to 46%) (P < .001) and was associated with lower RoB (P = .009). Effect size did not differ by RoB (P = .43) CONCLUSIONS: Random sequence generation and allocation concealment were not often reported, and selective reporting was prevalent. Measures to increase trialists' awareness and application of existing reporting guidance, and the prospective registration of RCTs is needed to improve the trustworthiness of findings from this field.

Consent and recruitment: the reporting of paediatric trials published in 2012

OBJECTIVES

We evaluated 300 paediatric trials to determine: the consent and recruitment strategies used, who trial information was targeted to, how incentives were used and if they achieved their recruitment targets.

METHODS

For this cross-sectional evaluation, we searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials for paediatric trials published in 2012 and randomly selected 300 that reported on outcomes for participants aged ≤21 years. We collected data on consent and recruitment procedures for each trial and undertook descriptive analyses in SPSS statistics V.23.

RESULTS

All but one trial (99.7%) used a standard recruitment strategy. Most (92%) trials reported that consent was obtained but only 13% reported who obtained consent. Two-thirds (65%) of trials included school-aged participants, and of these 68% reported obtaining assent. Half (50%) of the trials reported who the trial information was targeted to. Most trials (75%) of school-aged participants targeted information towards children or children and their parents. Fourteen per cent of trials reported using incentives, half (50%) of which were in the form of compensation. Only 48% of trials reported sufficient data to determine if their recruitment targets were achieved. Of these, 70% achieved their targets.

CONCLUSIONS

Notable reporting shortcomings included: how families were recruited into the trial, who obtained consent and/or assent and how, who trial information was directed to, whether incentives were used and sufficient data to determine if the recruitment target was achieved. Forthcoming paediatric-specific reporting standards may improve reporting in this priority area. Our data provide a baseline for ongoing monitoring of the state of the research.

Randomized clinical trials in dentistry: Risks of bias, risks of random errors, reporting quality, and methodologic quality over the years 1955-2013

OBJECTIVES

To examine the risks of bias, risks of random errors, reporting quality, and methodological quality of randomized clinical trials of oral health interventions and the development of these aspects over time.

METHODS

We included 540 randomized clinical trials from 64 selected systematic reviews. We extracted, in duplicate, details from each of the selected randomized clinical trials with respect to publication and trial characteristics, reporting and methodologic characteristics, and Cochrane risk of bias domains. We analyzed data using logistic regression and Chi-square statistics.

RESULTS

Sequence generation was assessed to be inadequate (at unclear or high risk of bias) in 68% (n = 367) of the trials, while allocation concealment was inadequate in the majority of trials (n = 464; 85.9%). Blinding of participants and blinding of the outcome assessment were judged to be inadequate in 28.5% (n = 154) and 40.5% (n = 219) of the trials, respectively. A sample size calculation before the initiation of the study was not performed/reported in 79.1% (n = 427) of the trials, while the sample size was assessed as adequate in only 17.6% (n = 95) of the trials. Two thirds of the trials were not described as double blinded (n = 358; 66.3%), while the method of blinding was appropriate in 53% (n = 286) of the trials. We identified a significant decrease over time (1955-2013) in the proportion of trials assessed as having inadequately addressed methodological quality items (P < 0.05) in 30 out of the 40 quality criteria, or as being inadequate (at high or unclear risk of bias) in five domains of the Cochrane risk of bias tool: sequence generation, allocation concealment, incomplete outcome data, other sources of bias, and overall risk of bias.

CONCLUSIONS

The risks of bias, risks of random errors, reporting quality, and methodological quality of randomized clinical trials of oral health interventions have improved over time; however, further efforts that contribute to the development of more stringent methodology and detailed reporting of trials are still needed.

Trends in the number and the quality of trial protocols involving children submitted to a French Institutional Review Board

Background

There is a great need for high quality clinical research for children. The European Pediatric Regulation aimed to improve the quality of clinical trials in order to increase the availability of treatments for children. The main purpose of this study was to assess the evolution of both the number and the quality of pediatric trial protocols that were submitted to a French Institutional Review Board (IRB00009118) before and after the initiation of the EU Pediatric Regulation.

Methods

All protocols submitted to the IRB00009118 between 2003 and 2014 and conducting research on subjects under eighteen years of age were eligible. The quality of randomized clinical trials was assessed according to the guidelines developed by the Enhancing the QUAlity and Transparency Of health Research (EQUATOR) Network and ranked using the Jadad score.

Results

Out of 622 protocols submitted to the Institutional Review Board (IRB), 21% (133/622) included children. Among these 133 pediatric protocols, the number of submitted pediatric protocols doubled between the two studied periods. From 2003 to 2008, 47 protocols including 21 institutionally sponsored were submitted to the IRB and from 2009 until 2014, 86 protocols including 48 institutionally sponsored were submitted. No significant trend was observed on the quality of RCTs. The overall median score of RCTs on the Jadad scale was high (3.5), 70.0% of protocols had a Jadad score ≥ 3, and 30.0% had a score < 3.

Conclusion

Following the EU Pediatric Regulation, the number of pediatric protocols submitted to the IRB00009118 tends to increase, but no change was noticed regarding their quality.

Industry sponsorship and research outcome

BACKGROUND

Clinical research affecting how doctors practice medicine is increasingly sponsored by companies that make drugs and medical devices. Previous systematic reviews have found that pharmaceutical-industry sponsored studies are more often favorable to the sponsor's product compared with studies with other sources of sponsorship. A similar association between sponsorship and outcomes have been found for device studies, but the body of evidence is not as strong as for sponsorship of drug studies. This review is an update of a previous Cochrane review and includes empirical studies on the association between sponsorship and research outcome.

OBJECTIVES

To investigate whether industry sponsored drug and device studies have more favorable outcomes and differ in risk of bias, compared with studies having other sources of sponsorship.

SEARCH METHODS

In this update we searched MEDLINE (2010 to February 2015), Embase (2010 to February 2015), the Cochrane Methodology Register (2015, Issue 2) and Web of Science (June 2015). In addition, we searched reference lists of included papers, previous systematic reviews and author files.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Cross-sectional studies, cohort studies, systematic reviews and meta-analyses that quantitatively compared primary research studies of drugs or medical devices sponsored by industry with studies with other sources of sponsorship. We had no language restrictions.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two assessors screened abstracts and identified and included relevant papers. Two assessors extracted data, and we contacted authors of included papers for additional unpublished data. Outcomes included favorable results, favorable conclusions, effect size, risk of bias and whether the conclusions agreed with the study results. Two assessors assessed risk of bias of included papers. We calculated pooled risk ratios (RR) for dichotomous data (with 95% confidence intervals (CIs)).

MAIN RESULTS

Twenty-seven new papers were included in this update and in total the review contains 75 included papers. Industry sponsored studies more often had favorable efficacy results, RR: 1.27 (95% CI: 1.17 to 1.37) (25 papers) (moderate quality evidence), similar harms results RR: 1.37 (95% CI: 0.64 to 2.93) (four papers) (very low quality evidence) and more often favorable conclusions RR: 1.34 (95% CI: 1.19 to 1.51) (29 papers) (low quality evidence) compared with non-industry sponsored studies. Nineteen papers reported on sponsorship and efficacy effect size, but could not be pooled due to differences in their reporting of data and the results were heterogeneous. We did not find a difference between drug and device studies in the association between sponsorship and conclusions (test for interaction, P = 0.98) (four papers). Comparing industry and non-industry sponsored studies, we did not find a difference in risk of bias from sequence generation, allocation concealment, follow-up and selective outcome reporting. However, industry sponsored studies more often had low risk of bias from blinding, RR: 1.25 (95% CI: 1.05 to 1.50) (13 papers), compared with non-industry sponsored studies. In industry sponsored studies, there was less agreement between the results and the conclusions than in non-industry sponsored studies, RR: 0.83 (95% CI: 0.70 to 0.98) (six papers).

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Sponsorship of drug and device studies by the manufacturing company leads to more favorable efficacy results and conclusions than sponsorship by other sources. Our analyses suggest the existence of an industry bias that cannot be explained by standard 'Risk of bias' assessments.

Pharmacological sedation management in the paediatric intensive care unit

Objective

This review addresses sedation management on paediatric intensive care units and possible gaps in the knowledge of optimal sedation strategies. We present an overview of the commonly used sedatives and their pharmacokinetic and pharmacodynamic considerations in children, as well as the ongoing studies in this field. Also, sedation guidelines and current sedation strategies and assessment methods are addressed.

Key findings

This review shows that evidence and pharmacokinetic data are scarce, but fortunately, there is an active research scene with promising new PK and PD data of sedatives in children using new study designs with application of advanced laboratory methods and modelling. The lack of evidence is increasingly being recognized by authorities and legislative offices such as the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and European Medicines Agency (EMA).

Conclusion

The population in question is very heterogeneous and this overview can aid clinicians and researchers in moving from practice-based sedation management towards more evidence- or model-based practice. Still, paediatric sedation management can be improved in other ways than pharmacology only, so future research should aim on sedation assessment and implementation strategies of protocolized sedation as well.

Harmonisation in study design and outcomes in paediatric antibiotic clinical trials: a systematic review

There is no global consensus on the conduct of clinical trials in children and neonates with complicated clinical infection syndromes. No comprehensive regulatory guidance exists for the design of antibiotic clinical trials in neonates and children. We did a systematic review of antibiotic clinical trials in complicated clinical infection syndromes (including bloodstream infections and community-acquired pneumonia) in children and neonates (0-18 years) to assess whether standardised European Medicines Agency (EMA) and US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) guidance for adults was used in paediatrics, and whether paediatric clinical trials applied consistent definitions for eligibility and outcomes. We searched MEDLINE, Cochrane CENTRAL databases, and ClinicalTrials.gov between Jan 1, 2000, and Nov 18, 2015. 82 individual studies met our inclusion criteria. The published studies reported on an average of 66% of CONSORT items. Study design, inclusion and exclusion criteria, and endpoints varied substantially across included studies. The comparison between paediatric clinical trials and adult EMA and FDA guidance highlighted that regulatory definitions are only variably applicable and used at present. Absence of consensus for paediatric antibiotic clinical trials is a major barrier to harmonisation in research and translation into clinical practice. To improve comparison of therapies and strategies, international collaboration among all relevant stakeholders leading to harmonised case definitions and outcome measures is needed.

Academic pediatric clinical research: factors associated with study implementation duration

BACKGROUND

The ethical, methodological, and technical aspects of pediatric research, often results in complications and delays in implementation. Our objective was to identify factors associated with the implementation duration of hospital-based pediatric studies.

METHODS

All hospital-based pediatric studies sponsored by AP-HP between 2002 and 2008 were retrospectively identified. Association of the funding mechanism and methodological factors with the implementation duration was assessed using a multivariable mixed linear model. Pharmaceutical factors were explored as part of a subgroup analysis restricted to the studies involving drug therapy. Given that we took an exploratory approach, factors associated with implementation duration with p < 0.10 were kept in the final models.

RESULTS

A total of 139 studies were evaluated. The median implementation duration was 17.1 months (range: 0.9-55.3 months), and tended to increase over time (from 14.9 [25(th) percentile-75(th) percentile: 11.5-19.9] months in 2002 to 23.7 [15.2-31.0] months in 2008, p = 0.01). External (coefficient [95 % confidence interval]: -7.7 [-11.9;-3.5] months, p < 0.001) and internal funding (-5.3 95 % CI [-9.8;-0.8], p = 0.02) compared to governmental funding and number of centers (-0.1 95 % CI[-0.2;0.02] months for 1 center increase, p = 0.07) were associated with reduced duration, whereas interventional study (either involving drug therapy (6.0 95 % CI[0.7;11.3] months, p = 0.03 or not (3.5 95 % CI[-0.3;7.3] months, p = 0.06) was associated with increased duration compared to observational study. Regarding the 35 studies involving drug therapy, external funding decreased duration (-6.7 95 % CI[-13.2;-0.2] months, p = 0.05), whereas studies involving solely a pediatric population (7.8 95 % CI[1.1;14.5] months, p = 0.01) (compared to mixed adult-pediatric population), a placebo-controlled design (6.6 95 % CI[0.9;12.3] months, p = 0.01), and inappropriate drug formulation for at least one drug used in the study (6.9 95 % CI[-0.2;14.0] months, p = 0.06) were associated with increased duration.

CONCLUSION

Implementation of hospital-based pediatric studies primarily faced delays when they were interventional and, in particular, when they involved drug therapy. Regarding the latter, difficulties that resulted in delayed studies arose with respect to the supply of drugs and placebo in age-appropriate dosages and route of administration. Therefore, difficulties related to the use of pharmaceuticals need to be anticipated earlier in order to avoid implementation delays.

The effectiveness and safety of treatments used for acute diarrhea and acute gastroenteritis in children: protocol for a systematic review and network meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Acute diarrhea and acute gastroenteritis (AD/AGE) are common among children in low- and middle-income countries (LMIC) and high-income countries (HIC). Supportive therapy including maintaining feeding, prevention of dehydration, and use of oral rehydration solution (ORS), is the mainstay of treatment in all children. Several additional treatments aiming to reduce the episode duration have been compared to placebo, but the differences in effectiveness among them are unknown.

METHODS AND ANALYSIS

We will conduct a systematic review of all randomized controlled trials evaluating the use of zinc, vitamin A, probiotics, prebiotics, synbiotics, racecadotril, smectite, and fermented and lactose-free milk/formula for AD/AGE treatment in children. The primary outcomes are diarrhea duration and mortality. Secondary outcomes are diarrhea lasting 3 or 7 days, stool frequency, treatment failure, hospitalizations, and adverse events. We will search MEDLINE, Ovid EMBASE, CINAHL, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), and LILACS through Ovid, as well as grey literature resources. Two reviewers will independently screen titles and abstracts, review full texts, extract information, and assess the risk of bias (ROB) and the confidence in the estimate (with the grading of recommendations, assessment, development, and evaluation [GRADE] approach). Results will be summarized narratively and statistically. Subgroup analysis according to HIC vs. LMIC, age, nutrition status, and ROB is planned. We will perform a Bayesian network meta-analysis to combine the pooled direct and indirect treatment effect estimates for each outcome, if adequate data is available.

DISCUSSION

This is the first systematic review and network meta-analysis that aims to determine the relative effectiveness of pharmacological and nutritional treatments for reducing the duration of AD/AGE in children. The results will help to reduce the uncertainty of the effectiveness of the interventions, find knowledge gaps, and/or encourage further research for other therapeutic options.

SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION

PROSPERO registration number: CRD42015023778.

Comparison of Drug Utilization Patterns in Observational Data: Antiepileptic Drugs in Pediatric Patients

PURPOSE

Physicians require information on the comparative benefits and harms of medications for optimal treatment decisions. However, this type of data is limited, especially for pediatric patients.

OBJECTIVE

Our aim was to use observational data to measure and compare medication utilization patterns in a pediatric patient population.

METHODS

Using pharmacy claims data from a large, national-scale insurance program in the USA, we identified all patients with a diagnosis of epilepsy treated with a first-generation antiepileptic drug (carbamazepine, ethosuximide, phenobarbital, phenytoin, or valproate) or a second-generation antiepileptic drug [carbamazepine extended release (XR), gabapentin, lamotrigine, levetiracetam, oxcarbazepine, tiagabine, topiramate, valproate XR, or zonisamide]. Treatment periods were defined on the basis of prescription fill dates and medication days supplied. Medication use was measured for individual antiepileptic drugs and for first-generation and second-generation drugs as groups.

RESULTS

There were 2527 patients (54 %) who initiated therapy with first-generation antiepileptics and 2139 patients (46 %) who initiated therapy with second-generation antiepileptics. First- and second-generation drugs had the same 1-year retention rates [26 % (95 % confidence interval (CI) 24-28) and 26 % (95 % CI 25-28), respectively], and 26 % of patients (95 % CI 25-28) and 29 % of patients (95 % CI 27-31) who started on a first- or second-generation antiepileptic medication, respectively, resumed treatment with the initial drug after discontinuation. Overall, 73 % of patients (95 % CI 71-74) were treated with only one antiepileptic drug, with similar rates for patients started on first- and second-generation drugs [71 % (95 % CI 69-73) versus 74 % (95 % CI 72-76)].

CONCLUSION

Comparing drug utilization patterns in a pediatric population using observational data, we found similar rates of retention and therapeutic changes. These findings are consistent with the available comparative data and demonstrate an approach that could be extended to other drug classes and conditions in pediatric populations to examine drug effectiveness.

Different treatment benefits were estimated by clinical trials performed in adults compared with those performed in children

OBJECTIVE

Our main objective was to see whether the therapeutic benefit observed in placebo controlled randomized controlled trials (RCTs) is different between adults and children.

STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING

We searched three electronic databases for meta-analyses that included double-blind, placebo-controlled RCTs with separate results for adults and children. The selected reviews were classified according to disease and drug used. The heterogeneity of treatment response between adults and children was measured using ratio of odds ratios (RORs).

RESULTS

We selected 89 meta-analyses and calculated RORs for 124 drugs. Heterogeneity in the direction of the treatment effect was observed in one drug and heterogeneity in the quantity of the treatment effect for 13 drugs, indicating significantly different treatment effect in adults when compared with children. RORs were not significantly different from 1 for 110 drugs. For 36 of these drugs, the treatment effect was confirmed in both populations.

CONCLUSION

We found different treatment benefits estimated by clinical trials performed in adults compared with those performed in children for 14 of 124 drugs. Data on dose adjustment and child age groups from RCTs were not adequately reported to investigate their influence on the treatment benefit dissimilarities.

Clinical trials in children

Safety and efficacy data on many medicines used in children are surprisingly scarce. As a result children are sometimes given ineffective medicines or medicines with unknown harmful side effects. Better and more relevant clinical trials in children are needed to increase our knowledge of the effects of medicines and to prevent the delayed or non-use of beneficial therapies. Clinical trials provide reliable evidence of treatment effects by rigorous controlled testing of interventions on human subjects. Paediatric trials are more challenging to conduct than trials in adults because of the paucity of funding, uniqueness of children and particular ethical concerns. Although current regulations and initiatives are improving the scope, quantity and quality of trials in children, there are still deficiencies that need to be addressed to accelerate radically equitable access to evidence-based therapies in children.

Successful private-public funding of paediatric medicines research: lessons from the EU programme to fund research into off-patent medicines

The European Paediatric Regulation mandated the European Commission to fund research on off-patent medicines with demonstrated therapeutic interest for children. Responding to this mandate, five FP7 project calls were launched and 20 projects were granted. This paper aims to detail the funded projects and their preliminary results. Publicly available sources have been consulted and a descriptive analysis has been performed. Twenty Research Consortia including 246 partners in 29 European and non-European countries were created (involving 129 universities or public-funded research organisations, 51 private companies with 40 SMEs, 7 patient associations). The funded projects investigate 24 medicines, covering 10 therapeutic areas in all paediatric age groups. In response to the Paediatric Regulation and to apply for a Paediatric Use Marketing Authorisation, 15 Paediatric Investigation Plans have been granted by the EMA-Paediatric Committee, including 71 studies of whom 29 paediatric clinical trials, leading to a total of 7,300 children to be recruited in more than 380 investigational centres.

CONCLUSION

Notwithstanding the EU contribution for each study is lower than similar publicly funded projects, and also considering the complexity of paediatric research, these projects are performing high-quality research and are progressing towards the increase of new paediatric medicines on the market. Private-public partnerships have been effectively implemented, providing a good example for future collaborative actions. Since these projects cover a limited number of off-patent drugs and many unmet therapeutic needs in paediatrics remain, it is crucial foreseeing new similar initiatives in forthcoming European funding programmes.

Risk of bias in randomized trials of pharmacological interventions in children and adults

OBJECTIVE

To determine whether randomized controlled trials of pharmacologic interventions in children are more likely to be biased than similar trials in adults.

STUDY DESIGN

Trials involving only children and published in MEDLINE between January 2008 and October 2009 (n=100) were randomly selected and matched, by drug class and therapeutic area, with a similar trial completed in adults. The Cochrane risk of bias tool was used to compare the pediatric and adult trials.

RESULTS

The characteristics of adult and pediatric trials included were similar, except that adult studies were more likely to be conducted in Europe and published in specialty journals. Two-thirds of all trials were single center, and 62% had 100 or fewer participants. Many trials had an unclear risk of bias for allocation concealment (65% adult, 52% pediatric). More pediatric trials had a low risk of bias for random sequence generation (59% pediatric, 41% adult, P=.002) and blinding of outcome assessment (63% pediatric, 48% adult, P=.04) than adult trials; however, a sensitivity analysis of trials published since 2008 (and so matched by year of publication) did not confirm this finding, suggesting year of publication was an important confounder.

CONCLUSIONS

When randomized controlled trials are matched for drug class and therapeutic area, trials involving children display a similar risk of bias. Differences in the risk of bias between pediatric and adult trials are not caused by differences in the capacity of researchers to conduct and report trials of high quality.

Randomized controlled trials of antibiotics for neonatal infections: a systematic review

AIMS

Antibiotics are a key resource for the management of infectious diseases in neonatology and their evaluation is particularly challenging. We reviewed medical literature to assess the characteristics and quality of randomized controlled trials on antibiotics in neonatal infections.

METHODS

We performed a systematic search of PubMed, Embase and the Cochrane Library from January 1995 to March 2010. Bibliographies of relevant articles were also hand-searched. We included all randomized controlled trials that involved neonates and evaluated the use of an antibiotic agent in the context of a neonatal infectious disease. Methodological quality was evaluated using the Jadad scale and the Cochrane Risk of Bias Tool. Two reviewers independently assessed studies for inclusion and evaluated methodological quality.

RESULTS

A total of 35 randomized controlled trials were evaluated. The majority were conducted in a single hospital institution, without funding. Median sample size was 63 (34-103) participants. The most frequently evaluated antibiotic was gentamicin. Respectively, 18 (51%) and 17 (49%) trials evaluated the therapeutic or prophylactic use of antibiotics in various neonatal infections. Overall, the methodological quality was poor and did not improve over the years. Risk of bias was high in 66% of the trials.

CONCLUSIONS

Design and reporting of randomized controlled trials of antibacterial agents in neonates should be improved. Nevertheless, the necessity of implementing such trials when antibacterial efficacy has already been established in other age groups may be questioned and different methods of evaluation should be further developed.

Association between pediatric clinical trials and global burden of disease

BACKGROUND

The allocation of research resources should favor conditions responsible for the greatest disease burden. This is particularly important in pediatric populations, which have been underrepresented in clinical research. Our aim was to measure the association between the focus of pediatric clinical trials and burden of disease and to identify neglected clinical domains.

METHODS

We performed a cross-sectional study of clinical trials by using trial records in ClinicalTrials.gov. All trials started in 2006 or after and studying patient-level interventions in pediatric populations were included. Age-specific measures of disease burden were obtained for 21 separate conditions for high-, middle-, and low-income countries. We measured the correlation between number of pediatric clinical trials and disease burden for each condition.

RESULTS

Neuropsychiatric conditions and infectious diseases were the most studied conditions globally in terms of number of trials (874 and 847 trials, respectively), while intentional injuries (5 trials) and maternal conditions (4 trials) were the least studied. Clinical trials were only moderately correlated with global disease burden (r = 0.58, P = .006). Correlations were also moderate within each of the country income levels, but lowest in low-income countries (r = .47, P = .03). Globally, the conditions most understudied relative to disease burden were injuries (-260 trials for unintentional injuries and -160 trials for intentional injuries), nutritional deficiencies (-175 trials), and respiratory infections (-171 trials).

CONCLUSIONS

Pediatric clinical trial activity is only moderately associated with pediatric burden of disease, and least associated in low-income countries. The mismatch between clinical trials and disease burden identifies key clinical areas for focus and investment.

The effects of industry sponsorship on comparator selection in trial registrations for neuropsychiatric conditions in children

Pediatric populations continue to be understudied in clinical drug trials despite the increasing use of pharmacotherapy in children, particularly with psychotropic drugs. Most pertinent to the clinical selection of drug interventions are trials directly comparing drugs against other drugs. The aim was to measure the prevalence of active drug comparators in neuropsychiatric drug trials in children and identify the effects of funding source on comparator selection. We analyzed the selection of drugs and drug comparisons in clinical trials registered between January 2006 and May 2012. Completed and ongoing interventional trials examining treatments for six neuropsychiatric conditions in children were included. Networks of drug comparisons for each condition were constructed using information about the trial study arms. Of 421 eligible trial registrations, 228 (63,699 participants) were drug trials addressing ADHD (106 trials), autism spectrum disorders (47), unipolar depression (16), seizure disorders (38), migraines and other headaches (15), or schizophrenia (11). Active drug comparators were used in only 11.0% of drug trials while 44.7% used a placebo control and 44.3% no drug or placebo comparator. Even among conditions with well-established pharmacotherapeutic options, almost all drug interventions were compared to a placebo. Active comparisons were more common among trials without industry funding (17% vs. 8%, p=0.04). Trials with industry funding differed from non-industry trials in terms of the drugs studied and the comparators selected. For 73% (61/84) of drugs and 90% (19/21) of unique comparisons, trials were funded exclusively by either industry or non-industry. We found that industry and non-industry differed when choosing comparators and active drug comparators were rare for both groups. This gap in pediatric research activity limits the evidence available to clinicians treating children and suggests a need to reassess the design and funding of pediatric trials in order to optimize the information derived from pediatric participation in clinical trials.

Mothers' perceptions of their child's enrollment in a randomized clinical trial: poor understanding, vulnerability and contradictory feelings

Background

Little is known about the views of mothers when their children are invited to participate in randomized clinical trials (RCTs) investigating medicines and/or invasive procedures. Our goal was to understand mothers’ perceptions of the processes of informed consent and randomization in a RCT that divided uncooperative children into three intervention groups (physical restraint, sedation, and general anesthesia) for dental rehabilitation.

Methods

This is a qualitative study based on semi-structured interviews with mothers accompanying children under 3 years old presenting severe early childhood caries. Their responses were analyzed using content analysis.

Results

We identified one major theme from 15 mothers’ responses – “Understanding of, attitudes toward, and feelings about consenting to participate in a RCT involving advanced behavior guidance techniques and about randomization” – that was derived from the following subcategories: confusion in defining techniques, questions after signing the consent form, lack of knowledge about the techniques, acceptance or questioning of the drawing, sharing responsibility with the child during the drawing, and feelings of faith in God, fear, powerlessness to choose, and relief from or an increase in pressure.

Conclusions

Despite mothers’ misunderstanding, vulnerability, and contradictory feelings, they were willing to overlook their thoughts in order to complete their children’s dental treatment.

StaR Child Health: improving global standards for child health research

Standards for Research (StaR) in Child Health, founded in 2009, addresses the current scarcity of and deficiencies in pediatric clinical trials. StaR Child Health brings together leading international experts devoted to developing practical, evidence-based standards to enrich the reliability and relevance of pediatric clinical research. Through a systematic "knowledge to action" plan, StaR Child Health creates opportunities to improve the evidence base for child health across the world. To date, six standards have been published and four more are under development. It is now time to use these standards. Improving the design, conduct and reporting of pediatric clinical trials will ultimately advance the quality of health care provided to children across the globe.

Randomized controlled trials in pediatric critical care: a scoping review

Introduction

Evidence from randomized controlled trials (RCTs) is required to guide treatment of critically ill children, but the number of RCTs available is limited and the publications are often difficult to find. The objectives of this review were to systematically identify RCTs in pediatric critical care and describe their methods and reporting.

Methods

We searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, LILACS and CENTRAL (from inception to April 16, 2013) and reference lists of included RCTs and relevant systematic reviews. We included published RCTs administering any intervention to children in a pediatric ICU. We excluded trials conducted in neonatal ICUs, those enrolling exclusively preterm infants, and individual patient crossover trials. Pairs of reviewers independently screened studies for eligibility, assessed risk of bias, and abstracted data. Discrepancies were resolved by consensus.

Results

We included 248 RCTs: 45 (18%) were multicentered and 14 (6%) were multinational. Trials most frequently enrolled both medical and surgical patients (43%) but postoperative cardiac surgery was the single largest population studied (19%). The most frequently evaluated types of intervention were medications (63%), devices (11%) and nutrition (8%). Laboratory or physiological measurements were the most frequent type of primary outcomes (18%). Half of these trials (50%) reported blinding. Of the 107 (43%) trials that reported an a priori sample size, 34 (32%) were stopped early. The median number of children randomized per trial was 49 and ranged from 6 to 4,947. The frequency of RCT publications increased at a mean rate of 0.7 RCTs per year (P<0.001) from 1 to 20 trials per year.

Conclusions

This scoping review identified the available RCTs in pediatric critical care and made them accessible to clinicians and researchers (http://epicc.mcmaster.ca). Most focused on medications and intermediate or surrogate outcomes, were single-centered and were conducted in North America and Western Europe. The results of this review underscore the need for trials with rigorous methodology, appropriate outcome measures, and improved quality of reporting to ensure that high quality evidence exists to support clinical decision-making in this vulnerable population.

Education in health research methodology: use of a wiki for knowledge translation

Introduction

A research-practice gap exists between what is known about conducting methodologically rigorous randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and what is done. Evidence consistently shows that pediatric RCTs are susceptible to high risk of bias; therefore novel methods of influencing the design and conduct of trials are required. The objective of this study was to develop and pilot test a wiki designed to educate pediatric trialists and trainees in the principles involved in minimizing risk of bias in RCTs. The focus was on preliminary usability testing of the wiki.

Methods

The wiki was developed through adaptation of existing knowledge translation strategies and through tailoring the site to the identified needs of the end-users. The wiki was evaluated for usability and user preferences regarding the content and formatting. Semi-structured interviews were conducted with 15 trialists and systematic reviewers, representing varying levels of experience with risk of bias or the conduct of trials. Data were analyzed using content analysis.

Results

Participants found the wiki to be well organized, easy to use, and straightforward to navigate. Suggestions for improvement tended to focus on clarification of the text or on esthetics, rather than on the content or format. Participants liked the additional features of the site that were supplementary to the text, such as the interactive examples, and the components that focused on practical applications, adding relevance to the theory presented. While the site could be used by both trialists and systematic reviewers, the lack of a clearly defined target audience caused some confusion among participants.

Conclusions

Participants were supportive of using a wiki as a novel educational tool. The results of this pilot test will be used to refine the risk of bias wiki, which holds promise as a knowledge translation intervention for education in medical research methodology.

Do health care institutions value research? A mixed methods study of barriers and facilitators to methodological rigor in pediatric randomized trials

BACKGROUND

Pediatric randomized controlled trials (RCTs) are susceptible to a high risk of bias. We examined the barriers and facilitators that pediatric trialists face in the design and conduct of unbiased trials.

METHODS

We used a mixed methods design, with semi-structured interviews building upon the results of a quantitative survey. We surveyed Canadian (n=253) and international (n=600) pediatric trialists regarding their knowledge and awareness of bias and their perceived barriers and facilitators in conducting clinical trials. We then interviewed 13 participants from different subspecialties and geographic locations to gain a more detailed description of how their experiences and attitudes towards research interacted with trial design and conduct.

RESULTS

The survey response rate was 23.0% (186/807). 68.1% of respondents agreed that bias is a problem in pediatric RCTs and 72.0% felt that there is sufficient evidence to support changing some aspects of how trials are conducted. Knowledge related to bias was variable, with inconsistent awareness of study design features that may introduce bias into a study. Interview participants highlighted a lack of formal training in research methods, a negative research culture, and the pragmatics of trial conduct as barriers. Facilitators included contact with knowledgeable and supportive colleagues and infrastructure for research.

CONCLUSIONS

A lack of awareness of bias and negative attitudes towards research present significant barriers in terms of conducting methodologically rigorous pediatric RCTs. Knowledge translation efforts must focus on these issues to ensure the relevance and validity of trial results.

Pediatric versus adult drug trials for conditions with high pediatric disease burden

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE

Optimal treatment decisions in children require sufficient evidence on the safety and efficacy of pharmaceuticals in pediatric patients. However, there is concern that not enough trials are conducted in children and that pediatric trials differ from those performed in adults. Our objective was to measure the prevalence of pediatric studies among clinical drug trials and compare trial characteristics and quality indicators between pediatric and adult drug trials.

METHODS

For conditions representing a high burden of pediatric disease, we identified all drug trials registered in ClinicalTrials.gov with start dates between 2006 and 2011 and tracked the resulting publications. We measured the proportion of pediatric trials and subjects for each condition and compared pediatric and adult trial characteristics and quality indicators.

RESULTS

For the conditions selected, 59.9% of the disease burden was attributable to children, but only 12.0% (292/2440) of trials were pediatric (P < .001). Among pediatric trials, 58.6% were conducted without industry funding compared with 35.0% of adult trials (P < .001). Fewer pediatric compared with adult randomized trials examined safety outcomes (10.1% vs 16.9%, P = .008). Pediatric randomized trials were slightly more likely to be appropriately registered before study start (46.9% vs 39.3%, P = .04) and had a modestly higher probability of publication in the examined time frame (32.8% vs 23.2%, P = .04).

CONCLUSIONS

There is substantial discrepancy between pediatric burden of disease and the amount of clinical trial research devoted to pediatric populations. This may be related in part to trial funding, with pediatric trials relying primarily on government and nonprofit organizations.

Randomized controlled trials of HIV/AIDS prevention and treatment in Africa: results from the Cochrane HIV/AIDS Specialized Register

Introduction

To effectively address HIV/AIDS in Africa, evidence on preventing new infections and providing effective treatment is needed. Ideally, decisions on which interventions are effective should be based on evidence from randomized controlled trials (RCTs). Our previous research described African RCTs of HIV/AIDS reported between 1987 and 2003. This study updates that analysis with RCTs published between 2004 and 2008.

Objectives

To describe RCTs of HIV/AIDS conducted in Africa and reported between 2004 and 2008.

Methods

We searched the Cochrane HIV/AIDS Specialized Register in September 2009. Two researchers independently evaluated studies for inclusion and extracted data using standardized forms. Details included location of trials, interventions, methodological quality, location of principal investigators and funders.

Results

Our search identified 834 RCTs, with 68 conducted in Africa. Forty-three assessed prevention-interventions and 25 treatment-interventions. Fifteen of the 43 prevention RCTs focused on preventing mother-to-child HIV transmission. Thirteen of the 25 treatment trials focused on opportunistic infections. Trials were conducted in 16 countries with most in South Africa (20), Zambia (12) and Zimbabwe (9). The median sample size was 628 (range 33-9645). Methods used for the generation of the allocation sequence and allocation concealment were adequate in 38 and 32 trials, respectively, and 58 reports included a CONSORT recommended flow diagram. Twenty-nine principal investigators resided in the United States of America (USA) and 18 were from African countries. Trials were co-funded by different agencies with most of the funding obtained from USA governmental and non-governmental agencies. Nineteen pharmaceutical companies provided partial funding to 15 RCTs and African agencies co-funded 17 RCTs. Ethical approval was reported in 65 trials and informed consent in 61 trials.

Conclusion

Prevention trials dominate the trial landscape in Africa. Of note, few principal investigators and funders are from Africa. These findings mirror our previous work and continue to indicate a need for strengthening trial research capacity in Africa.

The evidence base for interventions delivered to children in primary care: an overview of cochrane systematic reviews

BACKGROUND

As a first step in developing a framework to evaluate and improve the quality of care of children in primary care there is a need to identify the evidence base underpinning interventions relevant to child health. Our objective was to identify all Cochrane systematic reviews relevant to the management of childhood conditions in primary care and to assess the extent to which Cochrane reviews reflect the burden of childhood illness presenting in primary care.

METHODOLOGY/PRINCIPAL FINDINGS

We used the Cochrane Child Health Field register of child-relevant systematic reviews to complete an overview of Cochrane reviews related to the management of children in primary care. We compared the proportion of systematic reviews with the proportion of consultations in Australia, US, Dutch and UK general practice in children. We identified 396 relevant systematic reviews; 358 included primary studies on children while 251 undertook a meta-analysis. Most reviews (n = 218, 55%) focused on chronic conditions and over half (n = 216, 57%) evaluated drug interventions. Since 2000, the percentage of pediatric primary care relevant reviews only increased by 2% (7% to 9%) compared to 18% (10% to 28%) in all child relevant reviews. Almost a quarter of reviews (n = 78, 23%) were published on asthma treatments which only account for 3-5% of consultations. Conversely, 15-23% of consultations are due to skin conditions yet they represent only 7% (n = 23) of reviews.

CONCLUSIONS/SIGNIFICANCE

Although Cochrane systematic reviews focus on clinical trials and do not provide a comprehensive picture of the evidence base underpinning the management of children in primary care, the mismatch between the focus of the published research and the focus of clinical activity is striking. Clinical trials are an important component of the evidence base and the lack of trial evidence to demonstrate intervention effectiveness in substantial areas of primary care for children should be addressed.

Characteristics and quality of reporting of cluster randomized trials in children: reporting needs improvement

OBJECTIVE

To describe the characteristics and quality of reporting of cluster randomized trials (CRTs) in children published from 2004 to 2010.

STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING

Four databases were searched for reports of CRTs in children (0-18 years). Characteristics of the studies were summarized and the quality of reporting assessed using consolidated standards of reporting trial-CRT (CONSORT-CRT).

RESULTS

Of 1,949 identified references, 106 were included. The number of published CRTs in children increased since 2004. The greatest proportion of CRTs was undertaken in Europe (29%), whereas 40% was conducted in low- and middle-income countries. Most studies were of complex rather than simple interventions (83%); were preventive rather than treatment interventions (76%); and most frequently addressed infectious disease (21%), diet/physical activity interventions (19%), health-risk behaviors (15%), and undernutrition (13%). The majority used schools as units of randomization (72%) and enrolled 1,000-10,000 children per study (51%). Reporting was generally poor, with 34% of CRTs inadequately reporting on more than half of the CONSORT-CRT criteria. Although 85% of CRTs reported that they had ethics approval for the study, consent or assent was not obtained from children in most studies.

CONCLUSION

Children-specific elements of reporting are needed to improve the quality of reporting of CRTs and consequently their planning and implementation.

A descriptive analysis of a representative sample of pediatric randomized controlled trials published in 2007

BACKGROUND

Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) are the gold standard for trials assessing the effects of therapeutic interventions; therefore it is important to understand how they are conducted. Our objectives were to provide an overview of a representative sample of pediatric RCTs published in 2007 and assess the validity of their results.

METHODS

We searched Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials using a pediatric filter and randomly selected 300 RCTs published in 2007. We extracted data on trial characteristics; outcomes; methodological quality; reporting; and registration and protocol characteristics. Trial registration and protocol availability were determined for each study based on the publication, an Internet search and an author survey.

RESULTS

Most studies (83%) were efficacy trials, 40% evaluated drugs, and 30% were placebo-controlled. Primary outcomes were specified in 41%; 43% reported on adverse events. At least one statistically significant outcome was reported in 77% of trials; 63% favored the treatment group. Trial registration was declared in 12% of publications and 23% were found through an Internet search. Risk of bias (ROB) was high in 59% of trials, unclear in 33%, and low in 8%. Registered trials were more likely to have low ROB than non-registered trials (16% vs. 5%; p = 0.008). Effect sizes tended to be larger for trials at high vs. low ROB (0.28, 95% CI 0.21,0.35 vs. 0.16, 95% CI 0.07,0.25). Among survey respondents (50% response rate), the most common reason for trial registration was a publication requirement and for non-registration, a lack of familiarity with the process.

CONCLUSIONS

More than half of this random sample of pediatric RCTs published in 2007 was at high ROB and three quarters of trials were not registered. There is an urgent need to improve the design, conduct, and reporting of child health research.