Children in reviews: methodological issues in child-relevant evidence syntheses

Value of preclinical systematic reviews and meta-analyses in pediatric research

Similar to systematic reviews (SRs) in clinical fields, preclinical SRs address a specific research area, furnishing information on current knowledge, possible gaps, and potential methodological flaws of study design, conduct, and report. One of the main goals of preclinical SRs is to identify aspiring treatment strategies and evaluate if currently available data is solid enough to translate to clinical trials or highlight the gaps, thus justifying the need for new studies. It is imperative to rigorously follow the methodological standards that are widely available. These include registration of the protocol and adherence to guidelines for assessing the risk of bias, study quality, and certainty of evidence. A special consideration should be made for pediatric SRs, clinical and preclinical, due to the unique characteristics of this age group. These include rationale for intervention and comparison of primary and secondary outcomes. Outcomes measured should acknowledge age-related physiological changes and maturational processes of different organ systems. It is crucial to choose the age of the animals appropriately and its possible correspondence for specific pediatric age groups. The findings of well-conducted SRs of preclinical studies have the potential to provide a reliable evidence synthesis to guide the design of future preclinical and clinical studies. IMPACT: This narrative review highlights the importance of rigorous design, conduct and reporting of preclinical primary studies and systematic reviews. A special consideration should be made for pediatric systematic reviews of preclinical studies, due to the unique characteristics of this age group.

Systems for rating bodies of evidence used in systematic reviews of air pollution exposure and reproductive and children's health: a methodological survey

BACKGROUND

Translating findings from systematic reviews assessing associations between environmental exposures and reproductive and children's health into policy recommendations requires valid and transparent evidence grading.

METHODS

We aimed to evaluate systems for grading bodies of evidence used in systematic reviews of environmental exposures and reproductive/ children's health outcomes, by conducting a methodological survey of air pollution research, comprising a comprehensive search for and assessment of all relevant systematic reviews. To evaluate the frameworks used for rating the internal validity of primary studies and for grading bodies of evidence (multiple studies), we considered whether and how specific criteria or domains were operationalized to address reproductive/children's environmental health, e.g., whether the timing of exposure assessment was evaluated with regard to vulnerable developmental stages.

RESULTS

Eighteen out of 177 (9.8%) systematic reviews used formal systems for rating the body of evidence; 15 distinct internal validity assessment tools for primary studies, and nine different grading systems for bodies of evidence were used, with multiple modifications applied to the cited approaches. The Newcastle Ottawa Scale (NOS) and the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluations (GRADE) framework, neither developed specifically for this field, were the most commonly used approaches for rating individual studies and bodies of evidence, respectively. Overall, the identified approaches were highly heterogeneous in both their comprehensiveness and their applicability to reproductive/children's environmental health research.

CONCLUSION

Establishing the wider use of more appropriate evidence grading methods is instrumental both for strengthening systematic review methodologies, and for the effective development and implementation of environmental public health policies, particularly for protecting pregnant persons and children.

Clinical trials of stem cell-based therapies for pediatric diseases: a comprehensive analysis of trials registered on ClinicalTrials.gov and the ICTRP portal site

BACKGROUND

Research on clinical trials that employ stem cells to treat children's diseases is limited. The clinical trial registry database provides a unique window to us to get known about clinical trial researches with different statuses. However, few studies aimed to perform a comprehensive and thorough analysis of those registered trials in the aforementioned field based on ClinicalTrials.gov and the ICTRP portal site.

METHODS

Our study covered the clinical researches about stem cell therapy enrolling subjects aged under 18 years old registered on ClinicalTrials.gov and WHO ICTRP before May 18, 2021. A cross-sectional study was implemented to comprehensively describe and analyze the included trials that met the criteria. Results were available on ClinicalTrials.gov, and publications related to the included trials were identified. All analyses were performed utilizing the SPSS 25.0 software.

RESULTS

Eventually, 202 clinical trials were included and evaluated. The participant number of trials tended to be small; 71.3% were enrolled < 50. And 93.5% of the subjects were without gender restrictions. Till May 2020, 112 trials had been preliminary completed, of which only 39 trials had published papers or uploaded results. Most (73.6%) of 186 interventional trials were in phase 1 and phase 2, where 131 (70.4%) trials were conducted without masking, and 26.3% trials were randomized; 55.4% trials were performed single group assignment. Of 16 observational trials, case-only/series took up 37.5%. Hematopoietic stem cells (37.1%) and mesenchymal stem cells (36.1%) were mostly employed, while umbilical cord blood (UCB)-derived cells (24.3%) and bone marrow (BM)-derived cells (20.8%) were the major sources.

CONCLUSIONS

This study provided an overall picture of utilizing stem cells for treatment and management of childhood diseases. Since clinical trials in this area are insufficient in quantity and quality, there is an urgent need of larger, better-designed trials. Increased investment in clinical research of stem cell treatment products should be carried out to achieve the transformation of results as soon as possible. Moreover, it is important to optimize the management of the registration platform and shorten the time it takes for research results to be published.

Prevalence, Cost, and Variation in Cost of Pediatric Hospitalizations in Ontario, Canada

IMPORTANCE

Identifying conditions that could be prioritized for research based on health care system burden is important for developing a research agenda for the care of hospitalized children. However, existing prioritization studies are decades old or do not include data from both pediatric and general hospitals.

OBJECTIVE

To assess the prevalence, cost, and variation in cost of pediatric hospitalizations at all general and pediatric hospitals in Ontario, Canada, with the aim of identifying conditions that could be prioritized for future research.

DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS

This population-based cross-sectional study used health administrative data from 165 general and pediatric hospitals in Ontario, Canada. Children younger than 18 years with an inpatient hospital encounter between April 1, 2014, and March 31, 2019, were included.

MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES

Condition-specific prevalence, cost of pediatric hospitalizations, and condition-specific variation in cost per inpatient encounter across hospitals. Variation in cost was evaluated using (1) intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC) and (2) number of outlier hospitals. Costs were adjusted for inflation to 2018 US dollars.

RESULTS

Overall, 627 314 inpatient hospital encounters (44.8% among children younger than 30 days and 53.0% among boys) at 165 hospitals (157 general and 8 pediatric) costing $3.3 billion were identified. A total of 408 003 hospitalizations (65.0%) and $1.4 billion (43.8%) in total costs occurred at general hospitals. Among the 50 most prevalent and 50 most costly conditions (of 68 total conditions), the top 10 highest-cost conditions accounted for 55.5% of all costs and 48.6% of all encounters. The conditions with highest prevalence and cost included low birth weight (86.2 per 1000 encounters; $676.3 million), preterm newborn (38.0 per 1000 encounters; $137.4 million), major depressive disorder (20.7 per 1000 encounters; $78.3 million), pneumonia (27.3 per 1000 encounters; $71.6 million), other perinatal conditions (68.0 per 1000 encounters; $65.8 million), bronchiolitis (25.4 per 1000 encounters; $54.6 million), and neonatal hyperbilirubinemia (47.9 per 1000 encounters; $46.7 million). The highest variation in cost per encounter among the most costly medical conditions was observed for 2 mental health conditions (other mental health disorders [ICC, 0.28] and anxiety disorders [ICC, 0.19]) and 3 newborn conditions (intrauterine hypoxia and birth asphyxia [ICC, 0.27], other perinatal conditions [ICC, 0.17], and surfactant deficiency disorder [ICC, 0.17]).

CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE

This population-based cross-sectional study of hospitalized children identified several newborn and mental health conditions as having the highest prevalence, cost, and variation in cost across hospitals. Findings of this study can be used to develop a research agenda for the care of hospitalized children that includes general hospitals and to ultimately build a more substantial evidence base and improve patient outcomes.

A descriptive analysis of non-Cochrane child-relevant systematic reviews published in 2014

BACKGROUND

Consumers, clinicians, policymakers and researchers require high quality evidence to guide decision-making in child health. Though Cochrane systematic reviews (SRs) are a well-established source of evidence, little is known about the characteristics of non-Cochrane child-relevant SRs. To complement published descriptions of Cochrane SRs, we aimed to characterize the epidemiologic, methodological, and reporting qualities of non-Cochrane child-relevant SRs published in 2014.

METHODS

English-language child-relevant SRs of quantitative primary research published outside the Cochrane Library in 2014 were eligible for this descriptive analysis. A research librarian searched MEDLINE, CINAHL, Web of Science, and PubMed in August 2015. A single reviewer screened articles for inclusion; a second verified the excluded studies. Reviewers extracted: general characteristics of the review; included study characteristics; methodological approaches. We performed univariate analyses and presented the findings narratively.

RESULTS

We identified 1598 child-relevant SRs containing a median (IQR) 19 (11, 33) studies. These originated primarily from high-income countries (n = 1247, 78.0%) and spanned 47 of the 53 Cochrane Review Groups. Most synthesized therapeutic (n = 753, 47.1%) or epidemiologic (n = 701, 43.8%) evidence. Though 39.3% (n = 628) of SRs included evidence related to children only, few were published in pediatric-specific journals (n = 283, 17.7%). Reporting quality seemed poor based on the items we assessed; few reviews mentioned an a-priori protocol (n = 246, 15.4%) or registration (n = 111, 6.9%), and only 23.4% (n = 374) specified a primary outcome. Many SRs relied solely on evidence from non-RCTs (n = 796, 49.8%). Less than two-thirds (n = 953, 59.6%) appraised the quality of included studies and assessments of the certainty of the body of evidence were rare (n = 102, 6.4%).

CONCLUSIONS

Child-relevant Cochrane SRs are a known source of high quality evidence in pediatrics. There exists, however, an abundance of evidence from non-Cochrane SRs that may be complementary. Our findings show that high-quality non-Cochrane SRs may not be practical nor easy for knowledge users to find. Improvements are needed to ensure that evidence syntheses published outside of the Cochrane Library adhere to the high standard of conduct and reporting characteristic of Cochrane SRs.

How to address the placebo response in the prescription SSRIs and SNRIs in children and adolescents

SSRIs and SNRIs are prescribed as first-line pharmacological treatment for common mental disorders in children and adolescents. Despite their efficacy, they have a high risk for adverse events and exhibit a substantial placebo response. This editorial provides some background on the current evidence on the topic and suggests to carefully weigh the benefits of SSRIs and SNRIs against their potential harms. Therefore, the authors present two different set of conclusions - one for clinical practice, and one for future research designs.

Use of available clinical evidence to extrapolate drug effects from adults to children

The extrapolation of the benefit risk ratio from adults to children is performed during drug development and often implicitly used by many paediatricians when prescribing off-label drugs in children. This is due to the specific constraints of paediatric clinical research leading to a lack of safety and efficacy data in children. Extrapolation frameworks for drug development have been proposed by several regulatory agencies. Using a meta-epidemiological approach, we explored the similarities and differences of the benefit, the benefit risk ratio and the perceived placebo effect between adults and children from meta-analyses including randomized double-blinded placebo-controlled trials evaluating a drug intervention in an indication in adults and children with separate data for both populations. We also explored the use of the effect model using adult data to predict the treatment effect in children and to calibrate future paediatric clinical trials. Our research highlights the importance of using all available evidence and quantitative methods before extrapolating the benefit risk ratio from adults to children and carrying out new studies in the context of the existing evidence. More generally, this should be applied to any research to avoid a waste of time and resources invested.

Premature Discontinuation of Pediatric Randomized Controlled Trials: A Retrospective Cohort Study

OBJECTIVES

To determine the proportion of pediatric randomized controlled trials (RCTs) that are prematurely discontinued, examine the reasons for discontinuation, and compare the risk for recruitment failure in pediatric and adult RCTs.

STUDY DESIGN

A retrospective cohort study of RCTs approved by 1 of 6 Research Ethics Committees (RECs) in Switzerland, Germany, and Canada between 2000 and 2003. We recorded trial characteristics, trial discontinuation, and reasons for discontinuation from protocols, corresponding publications, REC files, and a survey of trialists.

RESULTS

We included 894 RCTs, of which 86 enrolled children and 808 enrolled adults. Forty percent of the pediatric RCTs and 29% of the adult RCTs were discontinued. Slow recruitment accounted for 56% of pediatric RCT discontinuations and 43% of adult RCT discontinuations. Multivariable logistic regression analyses suggested that pediatric RCT was not an independent risk factor for recruitment failure after adjustment for other potential risk factors (aOR, 1.22; 95% CI, 0.57-2.63). Independent risk factors were acute care setting (aOR, 4.00; 95% CI, 1.72-9.31), nonindustry sponsorship (aOR, 4.45; 95% CI, 2.59-7.65), and smaller planned sample size (aOR, 1.05; 95% CI 1.01-1.09, in decrements of 100 participants).

CONCLUSION

Forty percent of pediatric RCTs were discontinued prematurely, owing predominately to slow recruitment. Enrollment of children was not an independent risk factor for recruitment failure.

Are child-centric aspects in newborn and child health systematic review and meta-analysis protocols and reports adequately reported?-two systematic reviews

BACKGROUND

Evidence suggests that newborn and child health systematic reviews and meta-analyses exhibit poor quality in reporting. The "Preferred Reporting Items in Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis" (PRISMA) and PRISMA-Protocols (PRISMA-P) checklists have been developed to improve the reporting of systematic review results and protocols, respectively. We aimed to evaluate the clarity and transparency in reporting of child-centric items in child health systematic reviews (SRs) and SR protocols and to identify areas where reporting could be strengthened.

METHODS

Two preliminary lists of potential child-centric reporting items were used to examine current reporting. The Cochrane, DARE, MEDLINE, and EMBASE libraries were searched from 2010 to 2014 for systematic reviews that included children. Each report and protocol that met the inclusion criteria had their quality of reporting assessed by their reporting of child-centric items. Quality of reporting was assessed per whether one third, one to two thirds, or more than two thirds of papers complied with potential child-centric potential modifications/extensions to PRISMA and were analyzed by the following: (i) paper type (i.e., report vs. protocol), (ii) publication type (i.e., Cochrane vs. non-Cochrane), and (iii) population type (i.e., child-only vs. mixed populations vs. family/maternal).

RESULTS

Of the 414 eligible articles, 248 reports and 76 protocols were included. In 21 of 24 potential SR reporting items and 13 of 14 potential SR protocol reporting items, less than two thirds of papers met the child-centric reporting item requirements. Mixed population studies displayed significantly poorer reporting in comparison to child-only and family/maternal intervention studies for 11 potential SR reporting items (p < 0.05) and five potential SR protocol items (p < 0.05). When comparing non-Cochrane to Cochrane reports and protocols, five items in both lists were found to perform significantly poorer in non-Cochrane reports (p < 0.05). Significant differences in reporting quality were found in three of 14 items shared between the potential SR reporting items and potential SR protocol reporting items (p < 0.05).

CONCLUSIONS

Newborn and child health systematic reviews and meta-analyses exhibit incomplete reporting, thereby hindering prudent decision-making by healthcare providers and policy makers. These results provide a rationale for the implementation of child-centric extensions and modifications to current PRISMA and PRISMA-P, such as to improve reporting in this population.

Do systematic reviews on pediatric topics need special methodological considerations?

BACKGROUND

Systematic reviews are key tools to enable decision making by healthcare providers and policymakers. Despite the availability of the evidence based Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analysis (PRISMA-2009 and PRISMA-P 2015) statements that were developed to improve the transparency and quality of reporting of systematic reviews, uncertainty on how to deal with pediatric-specific methodological challenges of systematic reviews impairs decision-making in child health. In this paper, we identify methodological challenges specific to the design, conduct and reporting of pediatric systematic reviews, and propose a process to address these challenges.

DISCUSSION

One fundamental decision at the outset of a systematic review is whether to focus on a pediatric population only, or to include both adult and pediatric populations. Both from the policy and patient care point of view, the appropriateness of interventions and comparators administered to pre-defined pediatric age subgroup is critical. Decisions need to be based on the biological plausibility of differences in treatment effects across the developmental trajectory in children. Synthesis of evidence from different trials is often impaired by the use of outcomes and measurement instruments that differ between trials and are neither relevant nor validated in the pediatric population. Other issues specific to pediatric systematic reviews include lack of pediatric-sensitive search strategies and inconsistent choices of pediatric age subgroups in meta-analyses. In addition to these methodological issues generic to all pediatric systematic reviews, special considerations are required for reviews of health care interventions' safety and efficacy in neonatology, global health, comparative effectiveness interventions and individual participant data meta-analyses. To date, there is no standard approach available to overcome this problem. We propose to develop a consensus-based checklist of essential items which researchers should consider when they are planning (PRISMA-PC-Protocol for Children) or reporting (PRISMA-C-reporting for Children) a pediatric systematic review. Available guidelines including PRISMA do not cover the complexity associated with the conduct and reporting of systematic reviews in the pediatric population; they require additional and modified standards for reporting items. Such guidance will facilitate the translation of knowledge from the literature to bedside care and policy, thereby enhancing delivery of care and improving child health outcomes.

Parental Attitudes About Placebo Use in Children

OBJECTIVE

To assess parental attitudes regarding placebo use in pediatric randomized controlled trials and clinical care.

STUDY DESIGN

Parents with children under age 18 years living in the US completed and submitted an online survey between September and November 2014.

RESULTS

Among all 1300 participants, 1000 (76.9%; 538 mothers and 462 fathers) met the study inclusion criteria. The majority of surveyed parents considered the use of placebos acceptable in some pediatric care situations (86%) and some pediatric trials (91.5%), whereas only 5.7% of parents found the use of placebos in children always unacceptable. The clinical use of placebo was considered acceptable by a majority of parents for only 7 (mostly psychological) of the 17 conditions presented. Respondents' judgment about acceptability was influenced by the doctors' opinions about the therapeutic benefits of placebo treatment, the conditions for pediatric placebo use, transparency, safety, and purity of placebos.

CONCLUSION

Most surveyed parents accepted the idea of using placebos in pediatric trials and within the clinic for some conditions without the practice of deception and with the creation of guidelines for ethical and safe use. This study suggests a need to reconsider pediatric trial design and clinical therapy in the light of generally positive parental support of appropriate placebo use.

PRISMA-Children (C) and PRISMA-Protocol for Children (P-C) Extensions: a study protocol for the development of guidelines for the conduct and reporting of systematic reviews and meta-analyses of newborn and child health research

INTRODUCTION

Paediatric systematic reviews differ from adult systematic reviews in several key aspects such as considerations of child tailored interventions, justifiable comparators, valid outcomes and child sensitive search strategies. Available guidelines, including PRISMA-P (2015) and PRISMA (2009), do not cover all the complexities associated with reporting systematic reviews in the paediatric population. Using a collaborative, multidisciplinary structure, we aim to develop evidence-based and consensus-based PRISMA-P-C (Protocol for Children) and PRISMA-C (Children) Extensions to guide paediatric systematic review protocol and completed review reporting.

METHODS AND ANALYSIS

This project's methodology follows published recommendations for developing reporting guidelines and involves the following six phases; (1) establishment of a steering committee representing key stakeholder groups; (2) a scoping review to identify potential Extension items; (3) three types of consensus activities including meetings of the steering committee to achieve high-level decisions on the content and methodology of the Extensions, a survey of key stakeholders to generate a list of possible items to include in the Extensions and a formal consensus meeting to select the reporting items to add to, or modify for, the Extension; (4) the preliminary checklist items generated in phase III will be evaluated against the existing evidence and reporting practices in paediatric systematic reviews; (5) extension statements and explanation and elaboration documents will provide detailed advice for each item and examples of good reporting; (6) development and implementation of effective knowledge translation of the extension checklist, and an evaluation of the Extensions by key stakeholders.

ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION

This protocol was considered a quality improvement project by the Hospital for Sick Children's Ethics Committee and did not require ethical review. The resultant checklists, jointly developed with all relevant stakeholders, will be disseminated through peer-reviewed journals as well as national and international conference presentations. Endorsement of the checklist will be sought simultaneously in multiple journals.

Recommendations and evidence for reporting items in pediatric clinical trial protocols and reports: two systematic reviews

BACKGROUND

Complete and transparent reporting of clinical trial protocols and reports ensures that these documents are useful to all stakeholders, that bias is minimized, and that the research is not wasted. However, current studies repeatedly conclude that pediatric trial protocols and reports are not appropriately reported. Guidelines like SPIRIT (Standard Protocol Items: Recommendations for Interventional Trials) and CONSORT (Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials) may improve reporting, but do not offer guidance on issues unique to pediatric trials. This paper reports two systematic reviews conducted to build the evidence base for the development of pediatric reporting guideline extensions: 1) SPIRIT-Children (SPIRIT-C) for pediatric trial protocols, and 2) CONSORT-Children (CONSORT-C) for pediatric trial reports.

METHOD

MEDLINE, the Cochrane Methodology Register, and reference lists of included studies were searched. Publications of any type were eligible if they included explicit recommendations or empirical evidence for the reporting of potential items in a pediatric protocol (SPIRIT-C systematic review) or trial report (CONSORT-C systematic review). Study characteristics, recommendations and evidence for pediatric extension items were extracted. Recurrent themes in the recommendations and evidence were identified and synthesized. All steps were conducted by two reviewers.

RESULTS

For the SPIRIT-C and CONSORT-C systematic reviews 366 and 429 publications were included, respectively. Recommendations were identified for 48 of 50 original reporting items and sub-items from SPIRIT, 15 of 20 potential SPIRIT-C reporting items, all 37 original CONSORT items and sub-items, and 16 of 22 potential CONSORT-C reporting items. The following overarching themes of evidence to support or refute the utility of reporting items were identified: transparency; reproducibility; interpretability; usefulness; internal validity; external validity; reporting bias; publication bias; accountability; scientific soundness; and research ethics.

CONCLUSION

These systematic reviews are the first to systematically gather evidence and recommendations for the reporting of specific items in pediatric protocols and trials. They provide useful and translatable evidence on which to build pediatric extensions to the SPIRIT and CONSORT reporting guidelines. The resulting SPIRIT-C and CONSORT-C will provide guidance to the authors of pediatric protocols and reports, respectively, helping to alleviate concerns of inappropriate and inconsistent reporting, and reduce research waste.

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.

Ethical issues at the interface of clinical care and research practice in pediatric oncology: a narrative review of parents' and physicians' experiences

BACKGROUND

Pediatric oncology has a strong research culture. Most pediatric oncologists are investigators, involved in clinical care as well as research. As a result, a remarkable proportion of children with cancer enrolls in a trial during treatment. This paper discusses the ethical consequences of the unprecedented integration of research and care in pediatric oncology from the perspective of parents and physicians.

METHODOLOGY

An empirical ethical approach, combining (1) a narrative review of (primarily) qualitative studies on parents' and physicians' experiences of the pediatric oncology research practice, and (2) comparison of these experiences with existing theoretical ethical concepts about (pediatric) research. The use of empirical evidence enriches these concepts by taking into account the peculiarities that ethical challenges pose in practice.

RESULTS

Analysis of the 22 studies reviewed revealed that the integration of research and care has consequences for the informed consent process, the promotion of the child's best interests, and the role of the physician (doctor vs. scientist). True consent to research is difficult to achieve due to the complexity of research protocols, emotional stress and parents' dependency on their child's physician. Parents' role is to promote their child's best interests, also when they are asked to consider enrolling their child in a trial. Parents are almost never in equipoise on trial participation, which leaves them with the agonizing situation of wanting to do what is best for their child, while being fearful of making the wrong decision. Furthermore, a therapeutic misconception endangers correct assessment of participation, making parents inaccurately attribute therapeutic intent to research procedures. Physicians prefer the perspective of a therapist over a researcher. Consequently they may truly believe that in the research setting they promote the child's best interests, which maintains the existence of a therapeutic misconception between them and parents.

CONCLUSION

Due to the integration of research and care, their different ethical perspectives become intertwined in the daily practice of pediatric oncology. Increasing awareness of what this means for the communication between parents and physicians is essential. Future research should focus on efforts that overcome the problems that the synchronicity of research and care evokes.

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.

The evolution of a new publication type: Steps and challenges of producing overviews of reviews

BACKGROUND

To date, the Cochrane Child Health Field has published 18 overviews of reviews in our journal, Evidence-based Child Health: A Cochrane Review Journal. In this article, we highlight some of the logistical and methodological challenges of producing such syntheses. As this is a new and evolving publication type, we hope that our experience will benefit others who engage in this process. Current Methods: We discuss the process we have developed to produce overviews of reviews relevant to our mandate, including identification of the research question, establishment of the author team, selection of outcomes and included SRs, and presentation of findings. Ongoing Development: We discuss the lessons we have learned, outstanding challenges for overview authors, and the limitations of overviews.

CONCLUSIONS

Overviews of reviews are only as good as the SRs and primary studies on which they are based; gaps or lack of currency in this evidence will weaken the overview of reviews. Future directions in this work must address questions of bias and loss of information. Methods for overviews of reviews targeted for specific groups, such as children, need more elaboration. Copyright © 2011 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

Towards evidence-based pharmacotherapy in children

In daily practice, it is difficult to find a registered drug for children, because about 70% of the drugs prescribed in children are not studied, off-label or unlicensed in this age group. Clinical trials have usually been performed in adults, and then in daily practice dosages are adjusted for children without proper studies in that age group. In some countries, national formularies are being established to overcome the existing variance in prescribing between physicians. Complicating factors in finding the correct dosage for children include the heterogeneity between different age groups in the developmental stages of the organs influencing the absorption, distribution, metabolism, and excretion as well as differences in body composition during growth. Growth may also influence the effects and adverse effects of a drug used in a child. For oral administration of drugs in children, the bioavailability, the taste, the composition, and the absence of toxic ingredients for that age group are additional important factors. The EU has recently introduced legislation to stimulate the pharmaceutical industry to investigate the pharmacological effect and safety of new medicines in children. In response to this legislation, research networks are being established to provide the optimal infrastructure for pediatric drug investigation. The goals of this paper are to review the current problems in daily practice and to address the needs for evidence based pharmacotherapy in children.

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

BACKGROUND

The objective of this study was to describe randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and controlled clinical trials (CCTs) in child health published between 1948 and 2006, in terms of quantity, methodological quality, and publication and trial characteristics. We used the Trials Register of the Cochrane Child Health Field for overall trends and a sample from this to explore trial characteristics in more detail.

METHODOLOGY/PRINCIPAL FINDINGS

We extracted descriptive data on a random sample of 578 trials. Ninety-six percent of the trials were published in English; the percentage of child-only trials was 90.5%. The most frequent diagnostic categories were infectious diseases (13.2%), behavioural and psychiatric disorders (11.6%), neonatal critical care (11.4%), respiratory disorders (8.9%), non-critical neonatology (7.9%), and anaesthesia (6.5%). There were significantly fewer child-only studies (i.e., more mixed child and adult studies) over time (P = 0.0460). The proportion of RCTs to CCTs increased significantly over time (P<0.0001), as did the proportion of multicentre trials (P = 0.002). Significant increases over time were found in methodological quality (Jadad score) (P<0.0001), the proportion of double-blind studies (P<0.0001), and studies with adequate allocation concealment (P<0.0001). Additionally, we found an improvement in reporting over time: adequate description of withdrawals and losses to follow-up (P<0.0001), sample size calculations (P<0.0001), and intention-to-treat analysis (P<0.0001). However, many trials still do not describe their level of blinding, and allocation concealment was inadequately reported in the majority of studies across the entire time period. The proportion of studies with industry funding decreased slightly over time (P = 0.003), and these studies were more likely to report positive conclusions (P = 0.028).

CONCLUSIONS/SIGNIFICANCE

The quantity and quality of pediatric controlled trials has increased over time; however, much work remains to be done, particularly in improving methodological issues around conduct and reporting of trials.

Comparative effectiveness of medical interventions in adults versus children

OBJECTIVE

To estimate the comparative effectiveness of medical interventions in adults versus children.

STUDY DESIGN

We identified from the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews (Issue 1, 2007) meta-analyses with data on at least 1 adult and 1 pediatric randomized trial with binary primary efficacy outcome. For each meta-analysis, we calculated the summary odds ratio of the adult trials and the pediatric trials, respectively; the relative odds ratio (ROR) of the adult versus pediatric odds ratios per meta-analysis; and the summary ROR across all meta-analyses. ROR <1 means that the experimental intervention is more unfavorable in children than adults.

RESULTS

Across 128 eligible meta-analyses (1051 adult and 343 pediatric trials), the summary ROR did not show a statistically significant difference between adults and children (0.96; 95% confidence intervals, 0.86 to 1.08). However, in all meta-analyses except for 1, the individual ROR's 95% confidence intervals could not exclude a relative difference in efficacy over 20%. In two-thirds, the relative difference in observed point estimates exceeded 50%. Nine statistically significant discrepancies were identified; 4 of them were also clinically important.

CONCLUSIONS

Treatment effects are on average similar in adults and children, but available evidence leaves large uncertainty about their relative efficacy. Clinically important discrepancies may occur.

A descriptive analysis of child-relevant systematic reviews in the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews

Background

Systematic reviews (SRs) are considered an important tool for decision-making. There has been no recent comprehensive identification or description of child-relevant SRs. A description of existing child-relevant SRs would help to identify the extent of available child-relevant evidence available in SRs and gaps in the evidence base where SRs are required. The objective of this study was to describe child-relevant SRs from the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews (CDSR, Issue 2, 2009).

Methods

SRs were assessed for relevance using pre-defined criteria. Data were extracted and entered into an electronic form. Univariate analyses were performed to describe the SRs overall and by topic area.

Results

The search yielded 1666 SRs; 793 met the inclusion criteria. 38% of SRs were last assessed as up-to-date prior to 2007. Corresponding authors were most often from the UK (41%). Most SRs (59%) examined pharmacological interventions. 53% had at least one external source of funding. SRs included a median of 7 studies (IQR 3, 15) and 679 participants (IQR 179, 2833). Of all studies, 48% included only children, and 27% only adults. 94% of studies were published in peer-reviewed journals. Primary outcomes were specified in 72% of SRs. Allocation concealment and the Jadad scale were used in 97% and 25% of SRs, respectively. Adults and children were analyzed separately in 12% of SRs and as a subgroup analysis in 14%. Publication bias was assessed in only 14% of SRs. A meta-analysis was conducted in 68% of SRs with a median of 5 trials (IQR 3, 9) each. Variations in these characteristics were observed across topic areas.

Conclusions

We described the methodological characteristics and rigour of child-relevant reviews in the CDSR. Many SRs are not up-to-date according to Cochrane criteria. Our study describes variation in conduct and reporting across SRs and reveals clinicians' ability to access child-specific data.

Children are not just small adults: the urgent need for high-quality trial evidence in children

Terry Klassen and colleagues discuss a new study examining whether children and adults with drug-resistant partial epilepsy respond differently to antiepileptic drugs.

State of the evidence on acute asthma management in children: a critical appraisal of systematic reviews

OBJECTIVE

Our goal was to evaluate clinical, methodologic, and reporting aspects of systematic reviews on the management of acute asthma in children.

METHODS

We undertook a systematic review of systematic reviews on acute asthma management in children. We identified eligible reviews by searching the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, the Database of Abstracts of Reviews of Effects, Medline, and Embase 1990 to March 2006. Data were extracted on clinical issues, methodologic characteristics, and results of the reviews. Methodologic quality was assessed with the Overview Quality Assessment Questionnaire and with additional questions on heterogeneity. Separate reporting on children in mixed adult-pediatric population reviews was assessed. Methodologic quality of systematic reviews published in peer-reviewed journals was compared with Cochrane reviews.

RESULTS

A total of 23 systematic reviews were included: 14 were published in the Cochrane Library, and 9 were published in peer-reviewed journals. Eight reviews included children only, and 15 were mixed-population reviews. The majority of reviews defined the study population as having "acute asthma" without a more precise definition, and 16 different health outcomes were reported. The overall quality according to the Overview Quality Assessment Questionnaire was good, with Cochrane reviews showing minimal flaws and journal reviews showing minor flaws (median scores: 7 vs 5). Results on children were reported separately in 8 of 15 mixed-population reviews. Clinical heterogeneity was explored in only 2 of 23 reviews, and the methods used to identify and address heterogeneity were diverse.

CONCLUSIONS

The methodologic quality of both the Cochrane and journal reviews on the management of acute asthma in children seems good, with Cochrane reviews being more rigorous. However, their usefulness for clinical practice is hampered by a lack of clear definitions of included populations, clinically important health outcomes, and separate reporting on children in mixed reviews. A major threat to these reviews' validity is the insufficient identification and handling of heterogeneity.

An absence of pediatric randomized controlled trials in general medical journals, 1985-2004

OBJECTIVE

There are numerous potential barriers to conducting randomized controlled trials (RCTs) in children. The purpose of this study was to compare the quantity, trends over time, characteristics, and quality of pediatric RCTs published in general medical journals (GMJs) with adult RCTs.

STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING

We conducted an electronic search of adult and pediatric RCTs from 1985-2004 and a manual search of published RCTs in the year 2000 in five high-impact GMJs (New England Journal of Medicine, Journal of the American Medical Association [JAMA], the Lancet, British Medical Journal [BMJ], Canadian Medical Association Journal [CMAJ]). Linear trends were identified and the 1-year sample was analyzed for publication characteristics (location of recruitment, sample size, number of centers, funding sources, and results) and quality scoring (Jadad score, intention-to-treat analysis, and citation frequency since publication).

RESULTS

Adult RCTs increased by 4.71 RCTs/year (95% confidence interval (CI) 3.62-5.80; P<0.001), which was significantly higher (P<0.0001) than pediatric RCTs, which increased by 0.4 RCTs/year (95% CI -0.02 to 0.9; P=0.06). Adult RCTs were more likely to be hospital-based (P=.001) and to involve more centers in multicenter studies (P=0.02). Quality scores were similar, although adult RCTs were cited more frequently (P=0.003).

CONCLUSION

There may be significant barriers to the publication of high-quality pediatric RCTs in GMJs.

Treatment in the pediatric emergency department is evidence based: a retrospective analysis

BACKGROUND

Our goal was to quantify the evidence that is available to the physicians of a pediatric emergency department (PED) in making treatment decisions. Further, we wished to ascertain what percentage of evidence for treatment provided in the PED comes from pediatric studies.

METHODS

We conducted a retrospective chart review of randomly selected patients seen in the PED between January 1 and December 31, 2002. The principal investigator identified a primary diagnosis and primary intervention for each chart. A thorough literature search was then undertaken with respect to the primary intervention. If a randomized control trial (RCT) or a systematic review was found, the intervention was classified as level I evidence. If no RCT was found, the intervention was assessed by an expert committee who determined its appropriateness based on face validity (RCTs were unanimously judged to be both unnecessary and, if a placebo would have been involved, unethical). These interventions were classified as level II evidence. Interventions that did not fall into either above category were classified as level III evidence.

RESULTS

Two hundred and sixty-two patient charts were reviewed. Of these, 35.9% did not receive a primary intervention. Of the 168 interventions assessed, 80.4% were evidence-based (level I), 7.1% had face validity (level II) and 12.5% had no supporting evidence (level III). Of the evidence-based interventions, 83.7% were supported by studies with mostly pediatric patients.

CONCLUSION

Our study demonstrates that a substantial proportion of PED treatment decisions are evidence-based, with most based on studies in pediatric patients. Also, a large number of patients seen in the PED receive no intervention.