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

Michele P Hamm · Lisa Hartling · Andrea Milne · Lisa Tjosvold · Ben Vandermeer · Denise Thomson +2 more

74 citations0/0 files storedBMC Pediatrics

No readable copy stored yet — this record is metadata only.

No open-access location is known for this record yet.

Literature note Cite in a project Citation map

Meta-analysis and systematic reviews Statistical Methods in Clinical Trials Pharmaceutical industry and healthcare

Abstract

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.

Paper brief

Loading…

Cite this work

Citation unavailable for this work.

BibTeX RIS CSL-JSON

No public copy is stored for this record, so only the metadata is cited.

Citations in this library

Citation map →

Stored only when both papers are in the corpus — 74 citations exist upstream.

References

1996Assessing the quality of reports of randomized clinical trials: Is blinding necessary?2010CONSORT 2010 Statement: updated guidelines for reporting parallel group randomised trials 2021Introduction to Meta‐Analysis 2010CONSORT 2010 Statement: updated guidelines for reporting parallel group randomised trials 1995Empirical Evidence of Bias 1995Empirical evidence of bias. Dimensions of methodological quality associated with estimates of treatment effects in controlled trials 2001The Revised CONSORT Statement for Reporting Randomized Trials: Explanation and Elaboration 2004Empirical Evidence for Selective Reporting of Outcomes in Randomized Trials

Cited by

2010Controlled Trials in Children: Quantity, Methodological Quality and Descriptive Characteristics of Pediatric Controlled Trials Published 1948-2006 2020Publication Trends of Pediatric and Adult Randomized Controlled Trials in General Medical Journals, 2005–2018: A Citation Analysis 2012Quality of Registration for Clinical Trials Published in Emergency Medicine Journals 2014A meta‐epidemiological study to examine the association between bias and treatment effects in neonatal trials

Explore the map →

Papers that cite the same references — the relational fallback while embeddings are still backfilling.

Imported from OpenAlex (CC0) — nothing here is generated.