1
|
Sammy A, Baba A, Klassen TP, Moher D, Offringa M. A Decade of Efforts to Add Value to Child Health Research Practices. J Pediatr 2024; 265:113840. [PMID: 38000771 DOI: 10.1016/j.jpeds.2023.113840] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 08/09/2023] [Revised: 10/25/2023] [Accepted: 11/15/2023] [Indexed: 11/26/2023]
Abstract
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.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Adrian Sammy
- Child Health Evaluative Sciences, The Hospital for Sick Children Research Institute, Toronto, Ontario, Canada
| | - Ami Baba
- Child Health Evaluative Sciences, The Hospital for Sick Children Research Institute, Toronto, Ontario, Canada
| | - Terry P Klassen
- Department of Pediatrics and Child Health, Children's Hospital Research Institute of Manitoba, Rady Faculty of Health Sciences, University of Manitoba, Winnipeg, Manitoba, Canada
| | - David Moher
- Centre for Journalology, Clinical Epidemiology Program, Ottawa Hospital Research Institute, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada; School of Epidemiology and Public Health, Faculty of Medicine, University of Ottawa, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada
| | - Martin Offringa
- Child Health Evaluative Sciences, The Hospital for Sick Children Research Institute, Toronto, Ontario, Canada; Division of Neonatology, The Hospital for Sick Children, Toronto, Ontario, Canada; Institute of Health Policy, Management and Evaluation, University of Toronto, Toronto, Ontario, Canada.
| |
Collapse
|
2
|
Abstract
This Viewpoint discusses the development of pediatric-specific reporting guidelines that facilitate transparent reporting of published pediatric clinical trials.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Ami Baba
- Child Health Evaluative Sciences, The Hospital for Sick Children Research Institute, Toronto, Ontario, Canada
| | - Martin Offringa
- Child Health Evaluative Sciences, The Hospital for Sick Children Research Institute, Toronto, Ontario, Canada
- Institute of Health Policy, Management and Evaluation, University of Toronto, Toronto, Ontario, Canada
| |
Collapse
|
3
|
Baba A, Smith M, Potter BK, Chan AW, Moher D, Offringa M. Guidelines for reporting pediatric and child health clinical trial protocols and reports: study protocol for SPIRIT-Children and CONSORT-Children. Trials 2024; 25:96. [PMID: 38287439 PMCID: PMC10826142 DOI: 10.1186/s13063-024-07948-7] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 09/06/2023] [Accepted: 01/22/2024] [Indexed: 01/31/2024] Open
Abstract
BACKGROUND Despite the critical importance of clinical trials to provide evidence about the effects of intervention for children and youth, a paucity of published high-quality pediatric clinical trials persists. Sub-optimal reporting of key trial elements necessary to critically appraise and synthesize findings is prevalent. To harmonize and provide guidance for reporting in pediatric controlled clinical trial protocols and reports, reporting guideline extensions to the Standard Protocol Items: Recommendations for Interventional Trials (SPIRIT) and Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials (CONSORT) guidelines specific to pediatrics are being developed: SPIRIT-Children (SPIRIT-C) and CONSORT-Children (CONSORT-C). METHODS The development of SPIRIT-C/CONSORT-C will be informed by the Enhancing the Quality and Transparency of Health Research Quality (EQUATOR) method for reporting guideline development in the following stages: (1) generation of a preliminary list of candidate items, informed by (a) items developed during initial development efforts and child relevant items from recent published SPIRIT and CONSORT extensions; (b) two systematic reviews and environmental scan of the literature; (c) workshops with young people; (2) an international Delphi study, where a wide range of panelists will vote on the inclusion or exclusion of candidate items on a nine-point Likert scale; (3) a consensus meeting to discuss items that have not reached consensus in the Delphi study and to "lock" the checklist items; (4) pilot testing of items and definitions to ensure that they are understandable, useful, and applicable; and (5) a final project meeting to discuss each item in the context of pilot test results. Key partners, including young people (ages 12-24 years) and family caregivers (e.g., parents) with lived experiences with pediatric clinical trials, and individuals with expertise and involvement in pediatric trials will be involved throughout the project. SPIRIT-C/CONSORT-C will be disseminated through publications, academic conferences, and endorsement by pediatric journals and relevant research networks and organizations. DISCUSSION SPIRIT/CONSORT-C may serve as resources to facilitate comprehensive reporting needed to understand pediatric clinical trial protocols and reports, which may improve transparency within pediatric clinical trials and reduce research waste. TRIAL REGISTRATION The development of these reporting guidelines is registered with the EQUATOR Network: SPIRIT-Children ( https://www.equator-network.org/library/reporting-guidelines-under-development/reporting-guidelines-under-development-for-clinical-trials-protocols/#35 ) and CONSORT-Children ( https://www.equator-network.org/library/reporting-guidelines-under-development/reporting-guidelines-under-development-for-clinical-trials/#CHILD ).
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Ami Baba
- Child Health Evaluative Sciences, The Hospital for Sick Children, Toronto, ON, Canada
| | - Maureen Smith
- Patient Partner, Canadian Organization for Rare Disorders, Ottawa, ON, Canada
| | - Beth K Potter
- School of Epidemiology and Public Health, University of Ottawa, Ottawa, ON, Canada
| | - An-Wen Chan
- Department of Medicine, Women's College Research Institute, University of Toronto, Toronto, ON, Canada
- Institute of Health Policy, Management and Evaluation, University of Toronto, Toronto, ON, Canada
| | - David Moher
- Centre for Journalology, Clinical Epidemiology Program, Ottawa Hospital Research Institute, Ottawa, ON, Canada
| | - Martin Offringa
- Child Health Evaluative Sciences, The Hospital for Sick Children, Toronto, ON, Canada.
- Institute of Health Policy, Management and Evaluation, University of Toronto, Toronto, ON, Canada.
- Peter Gilgan Centre for Research and Learning, The Hospital for Sick Children, 686 Bay Street, Toronto, ON, M5G 0A4, Canada.
| |
Collapse
|
4
|
Li Q, Zhou Q, Florez ID, Mathew JL, Amer YS, Estill J, Smyth RL, Liu E, Chen Y, Luo Z. Reporting standards for child health research were few and poorly implemented. J Clin Epidemiol 2023; 158:141-148. [PMID: 36965601 DOI: 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2023.03.017] [Citation(s) in RCA: 4] [Impact Index Per Article: 4.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 03/21/2022] [Revised: 03/11/2023] [Accepted: 03/21/2023] [Indexed: 03/27/2023]
Abstract
OBJECTIVES This study aims to identify existing reporting standards for child health research, assess the robustness of the standards development process, and evaluate the dissemination of these standards. STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING We searched MEDLINE, the EQUATOR Network Library, and Google to identify reporting standards for child health research studies. We assessed the adherence of the Guidance for Developers of Health Research Reporting Guidelines (GDHRG) by the identified reporting standards. We also assessed the use of the identified reporting standards by primary research studies, and the endorsement of the included reporting standards by journals. RESULTS We identified six reporting standards for child health research, including two under development. Among the four available standards their median adherence to the 18 main steps of the GDHRG was 58.35% (range: 27.8%-83.3%). None of these four reporting standards had been endorsed by pediatric journals indexed by the Science Citation Index. Only 26 primary research studies declared that they followed one of the reporting standards. CONCLUSION There is a quantitative and qualitative paucity of well-developed reporting standards for child health research. The available standards are also poorly implemented. This situation demands an urgent need to develop robust standards and ensure their implementation.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Qinyuan Li
- Department of Respiratory Medicine Children's Hospital of Chongqing Medical University, National Clinical Research Center for Child Health and Disorders, Ministry of Education Key Laboratory of Child Development and Disorders, Chongqing Key Laboratory of Pediatrics, Chongqing, China
| | - Qi Zhou
- Evidence-based Medicine Center, School of Basic Medical Sciences, Lanzhou University, Lanzhou, China
| | - Ivan D Florez
- School of Rehabilitation Science, McMaster University, Hamilton, Ontario, Canada; Department of Pediatrics, University of Antioquia, Medellin, Antioquia, Colombia; Pediatric Intensive Care Unit, Clinica Las Americas-AUNA, Medellin, Colombia
| | - Joseph L Mathew
- Advanced Pediatrics Centre, PGIMER Chandigarh, Chandigarh, India
| | - Yasser Sami Amer
- Department of Pediatrics, Quality Management, King Saud University Medical City, Riyadh, Saudi Arabia; Research Chair for Evidence-Based Health Care and Knowledge Translation, Deanship of Scientific Research, King Saud University, Riyadh, Saudi Arabia; Alexandria Center for Evidence-Based Clinical Practice Guidelines, Alexandria University, Alexandria, Egypt
| | - Janne Estill
- Institute of Global Health, University of Geneva, Geneva, Switzerland; Institute of Mathematical Statistics and Actuarial Science, University of Bern, Bern, Switzerland
| | | | - Enmei Liu
- Department of Respiratory Medicine Children's Hospital of Chongqing Medical University, National Clinical Research Center for Child Health and Disorders, Ministry of Education Key Laboratory of Child Development and Disorders, Chongqing Key Laboratory of Pediatrics, Chongqing, China
| | - Yaolong Chen
- Evidence-based Medicine Center, School of Basic Medical Sciences, Lanzhou University, Lanzhou, China; Chevidence Lab of Child and Adolescent Health, Children's Hospital of Chongqing Medical University, Chongqing 40001, China; Research Unit of Evidence-Based Evaluation and Guidelines, Chinese Academy of Medical Sciences (2021RU017), School of Basic Medical Sciences, Lanzhou University, Lanzhou, China.
| | - Zhengxiu Luo
- Department of Respiratory Medicine Children's Hospital of Chongqing Medical University, National Clinical Research Center for Child Health and Disorders, Ministry of Education Key Laboratory of Child Development and Disorders, Chongqing Key Laboratory of Pediatrics, Chongqing, China.
| |
Collapse
|
5
|
Liu X, Sachdeva G, Ibrahim H, Charalambides M, Denniston AK. Clinical Evaluation of AI in Medicine. Artif Intell Med 2022. [DOI: 10.1007/978-3-030-64573-1_310] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 11/28/2022]
|
6
|
De Pretto-Lazarova A, Brancati-Badarau DO, Burri C. Transparent reporting of recruitment and informed consent approaches in clinical trials recruiting children with minor parents in sub-Saharan Africa: a secondary analysis based on a systematic review. BMC Public Health 2021; 21:1473. [PMID: 34320934 PMCID: PMC8318049 DOI: 10.1186/s12889-021-11079-y] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 10/08/2020] [Accepted: 05/18/2021] [Indexed: 11/24/2022] Open
Abstract
BACKGROUND Standardised checklists of items to be addressed in clinical study protocols and publications are promoting transparency in research. However, particular specifications for exceptional cases, such as children with minor parents are missing. This study aimed to examine the level of transparency regarding recruitment and informed consent approaches in publications of clinical trials recruiting children with minor parents in sub-Saharan Africa. We thereby focused particularly on the transparency about consenting persons (i.e. proxy decision-makers) and assessed the need to expand reporting guidelines for such exceptional cases. METHODS We conducted a secondary analysis of clinical trial publications previously identified through a systematic review. Multiple scientific databases were searched up to March 2019. Clinical trial publications addressing consent and potentially recruiting children with minor parents in sub-Saharan Africa were included. 44 of the in total 4382 screened articles met our inclusion criteria. A descriptive analysis was performed. RESULTS None of the included articles provided full evidence on whether any recruited children had minor parents and how consent was obtained for them. Four proxy decision-maker types were identified (parents; parents or guardians; guardians; or caregivers), with further descriptions provided rarely and mostly in referenced clinical trial registrations or protocols. Also, terminology describing proxy decision-makers was often used inconsistently. CONCLUSIONS Reporting the minimum maternal age alongside maternal data provided in baseline demographics can increase transparency on the recruitment of children with minor mothers. The CONSORT checklist should require clinical trial publications to state or reference exceptional informed consent procedures applied for special population groups. A standardized definition of proxy decision-maker types in international clinical trial guidelines would facilitate correct and transparent informed consent for children and children with minor parents. STUDY REGISTRATION CRD42018074220 .
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Angela De Pretto-Lazarova
- Swiss Tropical and Public Health Institute, Basel, Switzerland.
- University of Basel, Basel, Switzerland.
| | - Domnita Oana Brancati-Badarau
- Swiss Tropical and Public Health Institute, Basel, Switzerland
- University of Basel, Basel, Switzerland
- Centre for Primary Health Care (uniham-bb), Liestal, Switzerland
- Aston University, Birmingham, UK
| | - Christian Burri
- Swiss Tropical and Public Health Institute, Basel, Switzerland
- University of Basel, Basel, Switzerland
| |
Collapse
|
7
|
Harris KC, Mackie AS, Dallaire F, Khoury M, Singer J, Mahle WT, Klassen TP, McCrindle BW. Unique Challenges of Randomised Controlled Trials in Pediatric Cardiology. Can J Cardiol 2021; 37:1394-1403. [PMID: 34186112 DOI: 10.1016/j.cjca.2021.06.013] [Citation(s) in RCA: 15] [Impact Index Per Article: 5.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 03/15/2021] [Revised: 06/18/2021] [Accepted: 06/20/2021] [Indexed: 02/07/2023] Open
Abstract
Pediatric cardiology has evolved over time with reductions in childhood mortality due to congenital heart disease. Surgical innovation drove early changes in care. Increasingly, the need for more robust evidence provided by randomised controlled trials (RCTs) has been recognised. Although the number of RCTs has increased, there remains a relative paucity of truly impactful trials in the field. However, those trials that have changed practice have demonstrated the potential and importance of this work. Examples include the PRIMACORP trial, which established the safety and efficacy of milrinone after cardiac surgery, and the Single Ventricle Reconstruction trial, which was the first multicentre pediatric cardiac surgical RCT. The successful conduct and important findings emanating from these trials serve as beacons as clinicians strive to improve the evidence base in this field. The establishment of national and international networks such as the Pediatric Heart Network and the Canadian Pediatric Cardiology Research Network provide a strong foundation for future collaborative work. Despite this progress, there remain important challenges to designing and executing RCTs in pediatric cardiology. These include issues of greater disease and patient heterogeneity and increased costs. The use of innovative study designs and analytic methods and the establishment of core outcome measures have the potential to overcome some of the issues related to the smaller patient numbers compared with adult disciplines. As pediatric cardiologists look to the future, it is imperative that we work together to derive the maximum benefit from the considerable efforts directed toward conducting impactful clinical trials in pediatric cardiology.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Kevin C Harris
- Children's Heart Centre, British Columbia Children's Hospital &-University of British Columbia, Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada.
| | - Andrew S Mackie
- Division of Pediatric Cardiology, Department of Pediatrics Stollery Children's Hospital. University of Alberta, Edmonton, Alberta, Canada
| | - Frederic Dallaire
- Division of Pediatric Cardiology, Department of Pediatrics, Sherbrooke University, Sherbrooke, Québec, Canada
| | - Michael Khoury
- Division of Pediatric Cardiology, Department of Pediatrics Stollery Children's Hospital. University of Alberta, Edmonton, Alberta, Canada
| | - Joel Singer
- School of Population and Public Health, University of British Columbia, Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada
| | - William T Mahle
- Division of Pediatric Cardiology, Emory University, Atlanta, Georgia, USA
| | - Terry P Klassen
- Children's Hospital Research Institute of Manitoba and Department of Pediatrics, University of Manitoba, Winnipeg, Manitoba, Canada
| | - Brian W McCrindle
- Labatt Family Heart Centre, Hospital for Sick Children and University of Toronto, Toronto, Ontario, Canada
| |
Collapse
|
8
|
Clinical Evaluation of AI in Medicine. Artif Intell Med 2021. [DOI: 10.1007/978-3-030-58080-3_310-1] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 11/28/2022]
|
9
|
Molloy EJ, Bearer CF. When research goes wrong: the importance of clinical trials methodology. Pediatr Res 2020; 88:518-519. [PMID: 32454514 DOI: 10.1038/s41390-020-0984-5] [Citation(s) in RCA: 1] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.3] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 05/15/2020] [Accepted: 05/15/2020] [Indexed: 11/10/2022]
Affiliation(s)
- Eleanor J Molloy
- Discipline of Paediatrics, Trinity College, the University of Dublin, Dublin, Ireland. .,Children's Health Hospital (CHI) at Tallaght, Tallaght University Hospital, Dublin, Ireland. .,Trinity Translational Medicine Institute, St James Hospital, Dublin, Ireland. .,Neonatology, CHI at Crumlin, Dublin, Ireland. .,Paediatrics, Coombe Women's and Infant's University Hospital, Dublin, Ireland.
| | - Cynthia F Bearer
- Division of Neonatology, Department of Pediatrics, Rainbow Babies & Children's Hospital, Cleveland, OH, USA.,Case Western Reserve University School of Medicine, Cleveland, OH, USA
| |
Collapse
|
10
|
Jayaraman J, Dhar V, Donly KJ, Priya E, Innes NPT, Clarkson J, Raggio DP, Childers N, Wright T, King N, Nagendrababu V, Clarke M. Reporting stAndards for research in PedIatric Dentistry (RAPID): A development protocol. Int J Paediatr Dent 2020; 30:96-103. [PMID: 31411790 DOI: 10.1111/ipd.12569] [Citation(s) in RCA: 3] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.8] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 05/28/2019] [Revised: 06/16/2019] [Accepted: 08/08/2019] [Indexed: 12/12/2022]
Abstract
Reporting guidelines can improve the quality of reports of research findings. Some specialities in health care however require guidance on areas that are not captured within the existing guidelines, and this is the case for Paediatric Dentistry where no such standards are available to guide the reporting of different types of study designs. The 'Reporting stAndards for research in PedIatric Dentistry' (RAPID) group aims to address this need by developing guidelines on reporting elements of research of particular relevance to Paediatric Dentistry. The development of RAPID guidelines will involve a five-phase process including a Delphi study, which is an explicit consensus development method designed and implemented in accordance with the Guidance on Conducting and REporting DElphi Studies. The guideline development process will be overseen by an Executive Group. Themes specific to areas in Paediatric Dentistry will be selected, and items to be included under each theme will be identified by members of the Executive Group reviewing at least five reports of experimental and analytical study types using existing reporting guidelines. For the Delphi study, the Executive Group will identify an international multidisciplinary RAPID Delphi Group (RDG) of approximately 60 participants including academics, Paediatric Dentists, parents, and other stakeholders. Each item will be evaluated by RDG on clarity using a dichotomous scale ('well phrased' or 'needs revision') and on suitability for inclusion in the Delphi study using a 9-point Likert scale (1 = 'definitely not include' to 9 = 'definitely include'). The items will then be included in an online Delphi study of up to four rounds, with participants invited from stakeholder groups across Paediatric Dentistry. Items scored 7 or above by at least 80% of respondents will be included in the checklist and further discussed in a face-to-face Delphi consensus meeting. Following this, the Executive Group will finalize the RAPID guidelines. The guidelines will be published in peer-reviewed scientific journals and disseminated at scientific meetings and conferences. All the outputs from this project will be made freely available on the RAPID website: www.rapid-statement.org.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
| | - Vineet Dhar
- University of Maryland School of Dentistry, Baltimore, MD, USA
| | - Kevin J Donly
- University of Texas Health School of Dentistry, San Antonio, TX, USA
| | - Ekta Priya
- International Medical University, Bukit Jalil, Malaysia
| | | | | | - Daniela P Raggio
- Faculdade de Odontologia, Universidade de Sao Paulo, Sao Paulo, Brazil
| | - Noel Childers
- School of Dentistry, University of Alabama, Birmingham, AL, USA
| | - Timothy Wright
- University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, Chapel Hill, NC, USA
| | - Nigel King
- University of Western Australia, Perth, WA, Australia
| | | | | |
Collapse
|
11
|
Joseph PD, Caldwell PH, Barnes EH, Hynes K, Choong CS, Turner S, Vosk C, White J, Richichi K, Craig JC. Completeness of protocols for clinical trials in children submitted to ethics committees. J Paediatr Child Health 2019; 55:291-298. [PMID: 30161286 DOI: 10.1111/jpc.14189] [Citation(s) in RCA: 6] [Impact Index Per Article: 1.2] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 02/08/2018] [Revised: 06/20/2018] [Accepted: 07/23/2018] [Indexed: 12/11/2022]
Abstract
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.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Pathma D Joseph
- Discipline of Child and Adolescent Health, University of Sydney, Sydney, New South Wales, Australia.,Pharmacy Department, Children's Hospital at Westmead, Sydney, New South Wales, Australia
| | - Patrina Hy Caldwell
- Discipline of Child and Adolescent Health, University of Sydney, Sydney, New South Wales, Australia.,Centre for Kidney Research, Children's Hospital at Westmead, Sydney, New South Wales, Australia
| | - Elizabeth H Barnes
- NHMRC Clinical Trials Centre, University of Sydney, Sydney, New South Wales, Australia
| | - Kay Hynes
- Pharmacy Department, Royal Children's Hospital, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia
| | - Catherine S Choong
- Department of Diabetes and Endocrinology, Princess Margaret Hospital, Perth, Western Australia, Australia.,School of Paediatrics and Child Health, University of Western Australia, Perth, Western Australia, Australia
| | - Sean Turner
- Pharmacy Department, Women's and Children's Hospital, Adelaide, South Australia, Australia
| | - Claire Vosk
- Pharmacy Department, Monash Health, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia
| | - Jessie White
- Clinical Research and Education, Princess Margaret Hospital, Perth, Western Australia, Australia
| | - Kate Richichi
- Flinders Medical Centre and Repatriation General Hospital, Southern Adelaide Local Health Network, Adelaide, South Australia, Australia
| | - Jonathan C Craig
- Centre for Kidney Research, Children's Hospital at Westmead, Sydney, New South Wales, Australia.,School of Public Health, University of Sydney, Sydney, New South Wales, Australia
| |
Collapse
|
12
|
Butcher NJ, Mew EJ, Saeed L, Monsour A, Chee-A-Tow A, Chan AW, Moher D, Offringa M. Guidance for reporting outcomes in clinical trials: scoping review protocol. BMJ Open 2019; 9:e023001. [PMID: 30782872 PMCID: PMC6377514 DOI: 10.1136/bmjopen-2018-023001] [Citation(s) in RCA: 4] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.8] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 03/16/2018] [Revised: 10/11/2018] [Accepted: 12/19/2018] [Indexed: 11/03/2022] Open
Abstract
INTRODUCTION Patients, families and clinicians rely on published research to help inform treatment decisions. Without complete reporting of the outcomes studied, evidence-based clinical and policy decisions are limited and researchers cannot synthesise, replicate or build on existing research findings. To facilitate harmonised reporting of outcomes in published trial protocols and reports, the Instrument for reporting Planned Endpoints in Clinical Trials (InsPECT) is under development. As one of the initial steps in the development of InsPECT, a scoping review will identify and synthesise existing guidance on the reporting of trial outcomes. METHODS AND ANALYSIS We will apply methods based on the Joanna Briggs Institute scoping review methods manual. Documents that provide explicit guidance on trial outcome reporting will be searched for using: (1) an electronic bibliographic database search; (2) a grey literature search; and (3) solicitation of colleagues for guidance documents using a snowballing approach. Reference list screening will be performed for included documents. Search results will be divided between two trained reviewers who will complete title and abstract screening, full-text screening and data charting. Captured trial outcome reporting guidance will be compared with candidate InsPECT items to support, refute or refine InsPECT content and to assess the need for the development of additional items. Data analysis will explore common features of guidance and use quantitative measures (eg, frequencies) to characterise guidance and its sources. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION A paper describing the review findings will be published in a peer-reviewed journal. The results will be used to inform the InsPECT development process, helping to ensure that InsPECT provides an evidence-based tool for standardising trial outcome reporting.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Nancy J Butcher
- Child Health Evaluative Sciences, The Hospital for Sick Children Research Institute, Toronto, Ontario, Canada
| | - Emma J Mew
- Child Health Evaluative Sciences, The Hospital for Sick Children Research Institute, Toronto, Ontario, Canada
| | - Leena Saeed
- Child Health Evaluative Sciences, The Hospital for Sick Children Research Institute, Toronto, Ontario, Canada
| | - Andrea Monsour
- Child Health Evaluative Sciences, The Hospital for Sick Children Research Institute, Toronto, Ontario, Canada
| | - Alyssandra Chee-A-Tow
- Child Health Evaluative Sciences, The Hospital for Sick Children Research Institute, Toronto, Ontario, Canada
| | - An-Wen Chan
- Department of Medicine, Women's College Research Institute, Women's College Hospital, University of Toronto, Toronto, Ontario, Canada
| | - David Moher
- Centre for Journalology, Clinical Epidemiology Program, Ottawa Hospital Research Institute, Toronto, Ontario, Canada
| | - Martin Offringa
- Child Health Evaluative Sciences, The Hospital for Sick Children Research Institute, Toronto, Ontario, Canada
| |
Collapse
|
13
|
Use of available clinical evidence to extrapolate drug effects from adults to children. Therapie 2018; 73:119-125. [PMID: 29605145 DOI: 10.1016/j.therap.2017.11.007] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 10/15/2017] [Accepted: 11/15/2017] [Indexed: 11/22/2022]
Abstract
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.
Collapse
|
14
|
Gates A, Caldwell P, Curtis S, Dans L, Fernandes RM, Hartling L, Kelly LE, Williams K, Woolfall K, Dyson MP. Consent and recruitment: the reporting of paediatric trials published in 2012. BMJ Paediatr Open 2018; 2:e000369. [PMID: 30555937 PMCID: PMC6267313 DOI: 10.1136/bmjpo-2018-000369] [Citation(s) in RCA: 9] [Impact Index Per Article: 1.5] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 09/05/2018] [Revised: 11/01/2018] [Accepted: 11/02/2018] [Indexed: 02/01/2023] Open
Abstract
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.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Allison Gates
- Alberta Research Centre for Health Evidence, University of Alberta, Edmonton, Alberta, Canada.,Department of Pediatrics, University of Alberta, Edmonton, Alberta, Canada
| | - Patrina Caldwell
- Discipline of Child and Adolescent Health and Centre for Kidney Research, The University of Sydney, Sydney, New South Wales, Australia
| | - Sarah Curtis
- Department of Pediatrics, University of Alberta, Edmonton, Alberta, Canada
| | - Leonila Dans
- Department of Medicine, University of the Philippines, Manila, Philippines
| | - Ricardo M Fernandes
- Instituto de Medicina Molecular, Faculdade de Medicina, Universidade de Lisboa, Lisboa, Portugal.,Department of Pediatrics, Hospital de Santa Maria, Centro Hospitalar Lisboa Norte, Lisboa, Portugal
| | - Lisa Hartling
- Alberta Research Centre for Health Evidence, University of Alberta, Edmonton, Alberta, Canada.,Department of Pediatrics, University of Alberta, Edmonton, Alberta, Canada
| | - Lauren E Kelly
- Department of Pediatrics and Child Health, University of Manitoba, Winnipeg, Manitoba, Canada.,Clinical Trials Platform, George and Fay Yee Centre for Healthcare Innovation, Winnipeg, Manitoba, Canada
| | - Katrina Williams
- Developmental Medicine, Royal Children's Hospital, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia.,Department of Pediatrics, University of Melbourne, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia.,Clinical Sciences, Murdoch Children's Research Institute, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia
| | - Kerry Woolfall
- Institute of Psychology, Health and Society, University of Liverpool, Liverpool, UK
| | - Michele P Dyson
- Alberta Research Centre for Health Evidence, University of Alberta, Edmonton, Alberta, Canada.,Department of Pediatrics, University of Alberta, Edmonton, Alberta, Canada
| |
Collapse
|
15
|
Khanpour Ardestani S, Karkhaneh M, Yu HC, Hydrie MZI, Vohra S. Primary outcomes reporting in trials of paediatric type 1 diabetes mellitus: a systematic review. BMJ Open 2017; 7:e014610. [PMID: 29259053 PMCID: PMC5743897 DOI: 10.1136/bmjopen-2016-014610] [Citation(s) in RCA: 5] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.7] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 11/04/2022] Open
Abstract
OBJECTIVE Our objective was to systematically review randomised clinical trials (RCTs) of paediatric type 1 diabetes mellitus (T1DM) to assess reporting of (1) primary outcome, (2) outcome measurement properties and (3) presence or absence of adverse events. METHODS Electronic searches in MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL, Cochrane SR and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) databases were undertaken. The search period was between 2001 and 2017. English-language RCTs on children younger than 21 years with T1DM were selected. We excluded studies of diagnostic or screening tools, multiple phase studies, protocols, and follow-up or secondary analysis of data. RESULTS Of 11 816 unique references, 231 T1DM RCTs were included. Of total 231 included studies, 117 (50.6%) trials failed to report what their primary outcome was. Of 114 (49.4%) studies that reported primary outcome, 88 (77.2%) reported one and 26 (22.8%) more than one primary outcomes. Of 114 studies that clearly stated their primary outcome, 101 (88.6%) used biological/physiological measurements and 13 (11.4%) used instruments (eg, questionnaires, scales, etc) to measure their primary outcome; of these, 12 (92.3%) provided measurement properties or related citation. Of the 231 included studies, 105 (45.5%) reported that adverse events occurred, 39 (16.9%) reported that no adverse events were identified and 87 (37.7%) did not report on the presence or absence of adverse events. CONCLUSION Despite tremendous efforts to improve reporting of clinical trials, clear reporting of primary outcomes of RCTs for paediatric T1DM is still lacking. Adverse events due to DM interventions were often not reported in the included trials. Transparent reporting of primary outcome, validity of measurement tools and adverse events need to be improved in paediatric T1DM trials.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Samaneh Khanpour Ardestani
- CARE Program, Department of Pediatrics, Faculty of Medicine & Dentistry, University of Alberta, Edmonton, Alberta, Canada
| | - Mohammad Karkhaneh
- CARE Program, Department of Pediatrics, Faculty of Medicine & Dentistry, University of Alberta, Edmonton, Alberta, Canada
| | - Hai Chuan Yu
- CARE Program, Department of Pediatrics, Faculty of Medicine & Dentistry, University of Alberta, Edmonton, Alberta, Canada
| | | | - Sunita Vohra
- CARE Program, Department of Pediatrics, Faculty of Medicine & Dentistry, University of Alberta, Edmonton, Alberta, Canada
| |
Collapse
|
16
|
Hildenbrand AK. Editorial: Enhancing Transparent Reporting of Pediatric Psychology Intervention Research: Introducing the Role of the Student Editorial Liaison. J Pediatr Psychol 2017; 43:5-7. [DOI: 10.1093/jpepsy/jsx136] [Citation(s) in RCA: 7] [Impact Index Per Article: 1.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 10/15/2017] [Accepted: 10/16/2017] [Indexed: 01/03/2023] Open
|
17
|
Gautier I, Janiaud P, Rollet N, André N, Tsimaratos M, Cornu C, Malik S, Gentile S, Kassaï B. Trends in the number and the quality of trial protocols involving children submitted to a French Institutional Review Board. BMC Med Res Methodol 2017; 17:130. [PMID: 28835231 PMCID: PMC5569539 DOI: 10.1186/s12874-017-0395-4] [Citation(s) in RCA: 2] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.3] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 10/28/2016] [Accepted: 08/02/2017] [Indexed: 02/07/2023] Open
Abstract
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.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Isabelle Gautier
- Centre d'investigation Clinique Pédiatrique, INSERM CIC 9502, Hôpital d'Enfants de la Timone, AP-HM, 264, rue Saint-Pierre, 13005, Marseille, France. .,EA3279 - Santé Publique: Maladies Chroniques et Qualité de Vie, Aix-Marseille Université, 13385, Marseille, France.
| | - Perrine Janiaud
- Evolutive Biology and Biometric Laboratory UMR5558 CNRS, Université Claude Bernard Lyon 1, 8 rue Guillaume Paradin, BP8071, 69376-CEDEX-08, Lyon, France
| | - Nelly Rollet
- Evolutive Biology and Biometric Laboratory UMR5558 CNRS, Université Claude Bernard Lyon 1, 8 rue Guillaume Paradin, BP8071, 69376-CEDEX-08, Lyon, France
| | - Nicolas André
- Centre d'investigation Clinique Pédiatrique, INSERM CIC 9502, Hôpital d'Enfants de la Timone, AP-HM, 264, rue Saint-Pierre, 13005, Marseille, France
| | - Michel Tsimaratos
- Centre d'investigation Clinique Pédiatrique, INSERM CIC 9502, Hôpital d'Enfants de la Timone, AP-HM, 264, rue Saint-Pierre, 13005, Marseille, France
| | - Catherine Cornu
- Evolutive Biology and Biometric Laboratory UMR5558 CNRS, Université Claude Bernard Lyon 1, 8 rue Guillaume Paradin, BP8071, 69376-CEDEX-08, Lyon, France.,EPICIME, Centre d'Investigation Clinique, INSERM CIC 1407, Hospices Civils de Lyon, 28 Avenue du Doyen Lépine, 69677-CEDEX, Bron, France
| | - Salma Malik
- Evolutive Biology and Biometric Laboratory UMR5558 CNRS, Université Claude Bernard Lyon 1, 8 rue Guillaume Paradin, BP8071, 69376-CEDEX-08, Lyon, France.,EPICIME, Centre d'Investigation Clinique, INSERM CIC 1407, Hospices Civils de Lyon, 28 Avenue du Doyen Lépine, 69677-CEDEX, Bron, France
| | - Stéphanie Gentile
- EA3279 - Santé Publique: Maladies Chroniques et Qualité de Vie, Aix-Marseille Université, 13385, Marseille, France
| | - Behrouz Kassaï
- Evolutive Biology and Biometric Laboratory UMR5558 CNRS, Université Claude Bernard Lyon 1, 8 rue Guillaume Paradin, BP8071, 69376-CEDEX-08, Lyon, France.,EPICIME, Centre d'Investigation Clinique, INSERM CIC 1407, Hospices Civils de Lyon, 28 Avenue du Doyen Lépine, 69677-CEDEX, Bron, France
| |
Collapse
|
18
|
Catalá-López F, Hutton B, Núñez-Beltrán A, Page MJ, Ridao M, Macías Saint-Gerons D, Catalá MA, Tabarés-Seisdedos R, Moher D. The pharmacological and non-pharmacological treatment of attention deficit hyperactivity disorder in children and adolescents: A systematic review with network meta-analyses of randomised trials. PLoS One 2017; 12:e0180355. [PMID: 28700715 PMCID: PMC5507500 DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0180355] [Citation(s) in RCA: 177] [Impact Index Per Article: 25.3] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 01/19/2017] [Accepted: 06/14/2017] [Indexed: 11/18/2022] Open
Abstract
BACKGROUND Attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) is one of the most commonly diagnosed psychiatric disorders in childhood. A wide variety of treatments have been used for the management of ADHD. We aimed to compare the efficacy and safety of pharmacological, psychological and complementary and alternative medicine interventions for the treatment of ADHD in children and adolescents. METHODS AND FINDINGS We performed a systematic review with network meta-analyses. Randomised controlled trials (≥ 3 weeks follow-up) were identified from published and unpublished sources through searches in PubMed and the Cochrane Library (up to April 7, 2016). Interventions of interest were pharmacological (stimulants, non-stimulants, antidepressants, antipsychotics, and other unlicensed drugs), psychological (behavioural, cognitive training and neurofeedback) and complementary and alternative medicine (dietary therapy, fatty acids, amino acids, minerals, herbal therapy, homeopathy, and physical activity). The primary outcomes were efficacy (treatment response) and acceptability (all-cause discontinuation). Secondary outcomes included discontinuation due to adverse events (tolerability), as well as serious adverse events and specific adverse events. Random-effects Bayesian network meta-analyses were conducted to obtain estimates as odds ratios (ORs) with 95% credibility intervals. We analysed interventions by class and individually. 190 randomised trials (52 different interventions grouped in 32 therapeutic classes) that enrolled 26114 participants with ADHD were included in complex networks. At the class level, behavioural therapy (alone or in combination with stimulants), stimulants, and non-stimulant seemed significantly more efficacious than placebo. Behavioural therapy in combination with stimulants seemed superior to stimulants or non-stimulants. Stimulants seemed superior to behavioural therapy, cognitive training and non-stimulants. Behavioural therapy, stimulants and their combination showed the best profile of acceptability. Stimulants and non-stimulants seemed well tolerated. Among medications, methylphenidate, amphetamine, atomoxetine, guanfacine and clonidine seemed significantly more efficacious than placebo. Methylphenidate and amphetamine seemed more efficacious than atomoxetine and guanfacine. Methylphenidate and clonidine seemed better accepted than placebo and atomoxetine. Most of the efficacious pharmacological treatments were associated with harms (anorexia, weight loss and insomnia), but an increased risk of serious adverse events was not observed. There is lack of evidence for cognitive training, neurofeedback, antidepressants, antipsychotics, dietary therapy, fatty acids, and other complementary and alternative medicine. Overall findings were limited by the clinical and methodological heterogeneity, small sample sizes of trials, short-term follow-up, and the absence of high-quality evidence; consequently, results should be interpreted with caution. CONCLUSIONS Clinical differences may exist between the pharmacological and non-pharmacological treatment used for the management of ADHD. Uncertainties about therapies and the balance between benefits, costs and potential harms should be considered before starting treatment. There is an urgent need for high-quality randomised trials of the multiple treatments for ADHD in children and adolescents. PROSPERO, number CRD42014015008.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Ferrán Catalá-López
- Clinical Epidemiology Program, Ottawa Hospital Research Institute, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada
- Fundación Instituto de Investigación en Servicios de Salud, Valencia, Spain
- Department of Medicine, University of Valencia/INCLIVA Health Research Institute and CIBERSAM, Valencia, Spain
- * E-mail:
| | - Brian Hutton
- Clinical Epidemiology Program, Ottawa Hospital Research Institute, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada
- School of Epidemiology, Public Health and Preventive Medicine, Faculty of Medicine, University of Ottawa, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada
| | - Amparo Núñez-Beltrán
- Centro de Atención Integral a Drogodependientes (CAID) Norte, Regional Health Council, Madrid, Spain
| | - Matthew J. Page
- School of Public Health and Preventive Medicine, Monash University, Melbourne, Australia
- School of Social and Community Medicine, University of Bristol, Bristol, United Kingdom
| | - Manuel Ridao
- Fundación Instituto de Investigación en Servicios de Salud, Valencia, Spain
- Instituto Aragonés de Ciencias de la Salud (IACS), Red de Investigación en Servicios de Salud en Enfermedades Crónicas (REDISSEC), Zaragoza, Spain
| | - Diego Macías Saint-Gerons
- Division of Pharmacoepidemiology and Pharmacovigilance, Spanish Medicines and Healthcare Products Agency (AEMPS), Madrid, Spain
| | | | - Rafael Tabarés-Seisdedos
- Department of Medicine, University of Valencia/INCLIVA Health Research Institute and CIBERSAM, Valencia, Spain
| | - David Moher
- Clinical Epidemiology Program, Ottawa Hospital Research Institute, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada
- School of Epidemiology, Public Health and Preventive Medicine, Faculty of Medicine, University of Ottawa, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada
| |
Collapse
|
19
|
Batalau R, Cruz J, Gonçalves R, Santos M, Leal J, Palmeira A. Project PANK: Rationale, study protocol and baseline results of a multidisciplinary school based intervention in children with cardiovascular and metabolic risk factors. MOTRIZ: REVISTA DE EDUCACAO FISICA 2017. [DOI: 10.1590/s1980-6574201700020005] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 11/22/2022] Open
Affiliation(s)
- Rui Batalau
- Universidade Lusofana de Humanidades e Tecnologias, Portugal; Instituto Superior Manuel Teixeira Gomes, Portugal
| | - Joana Cruz
- Instituto Superior Manuel Teixeira Gomes, Portugal
| | | | - Magda Santos
- Instituto Superior Manuel Teixeira Gomes, Portugal
| | - João Leal
- Instituto Superior Manuel Teixeira Gomes, Portugal
| | - António Palmeira
- Instituto Superior Manuel Teixeira Gomes, Portugal; Universidade Técnica de Lisboa, Portugal
| |
Collapse
|
20
|
|
21
|
Farid-Kapadia M, Joachim KC, Balasingham C, Clyburne-Sherin A, Offringa M. Are child-centric aspects in newborn and child health systematic review and meta-analysis protocols and reports adequately reported?-two systematic reviews. Syst Rev 2017; 6:31. [PMID: 28260528 PMCID: PMC5338085 DOI: 10.1186/s13643-017-0423-9] [Citation(s) in RCA: 6] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.9] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 08/05/2016] [Accepted: 01/26/2017] [Indexed: 12/19/2022] Open
Abstract
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.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Mufiza Farid-Kapadia
- Toronto Outcomes Research in Child Health (TORCH), Child Health Evaluative Sciences, Research Institute, The Hospital for Sick Children, University of Toronto, 686 Bay Street, Toronto, Ontario M5G 0A4 Canada
| | - Kariym C. Joachim
- Toronto Outcomes Research in Child Health (TORCH), Child Health Evaluative Sciences, Research Institute, The Hospital for Sick Children, University of Toronto, 686 Bay Street, Toronto, Ontario M5G 0A4 Canada
| | - Chrinna Balasingham
- Toronto Outcomes Research in Child Health (TORCH), Child Health Evaluative Sciences, Research Institute, The Hospital for Sick Children, University of Toronto, 686 Bay Street, Toronto, Ontario M5G 0A4 Canada
| | - April Clyburne-Sherin
- Toronto Outcomes Research in Child Health (TORCH), Child Health Evaluative Sciences, Research Institute, The Hospital for Sick Children, University of Toronto, 686 Bay Street, Toronto, Ontario M5G 0A4 Canada
| | - Martin Offringa
- Toronto Outcomes Research in Child Health (TORCH), Child Health Evaluative Sciences, Research Institute, The Hospital for Sick Children, University of Toronto, 686 Bay Street, Toronto, Ontario M5G 0A4 Canada
- Department of Paediatrics, The Hospital for Sick Children, University of Toronto, Toronto, Canada
| |
Collapse
|
22
|
Blake H, Quirk H, Leighton P, Randell T, Greening J, Guo B, Glazebrook C. Feasibility of an online intervention (STAK-D) to promote physical activity in children with type 1 diabetes: protocol for a randomised controlled trial. Trials 2016; 17:583. [PMID: 27931254 PMCID: PMC5146845 DOI: 10.1186/s13063-016-1719-0] [Citation(s) in RCA: 7] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.9] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 08/08/2016] [Accepted: 11/22/2016] [Indexed: 01/02/2023] Open
Abstract
Background Regular physical activity has important health benefits for children with type 1 diabetes mellitus (T1DM), yet children and their parents face barriers to participation such as lack of self-efficacy or concerns around hypoglycaemia. Multimedia interventions are useful for educating children about their health and demonstrate potential to improve children’s health-related self-efficacy, but few paediatric clinics offer web-based resources as part of routine care. The Steps to Active Kids with Diabetes (STAK-D) programme is an online intervention grounded in psychological theory (social cognitive theory) and informed by extensive preliminary research. The aim of the programme is to encourage and support safe engagement with physical activity for children with T1DM. The aim of this research is to explore the feasibility of delivering the STAK-D programme to children aged 9–12 years with T1DM, and to assess the feasibility of further research to demonstrate its clinical and cost-effectiveness. Methods Up to 50 children aged 9–12 years with T1DM and their parents will be recruited from two paediatric diabetes clinics in the UK. Child-parent dyads randomised to the intervention group will have access to the intervention website (STAK-D) and a wrist-worn activity monitor for 6 months. The feasibility of intervention and further research will be assessed by rate of recruitment, adherence, retention, data completion and adverse events. Qualitative interviews will be undertaken with a subsample of children and parents (up to 25 dyads) and health care professionals (up to 10). Health outcomes and the feasibility of outcome measurement tools will be assessed. These include self-efficacy (CSAPPA), objective physical activity, self-reported physical activity (PAQ), fear of hypoglycaemia (CHFS; PHFS), glycaemic control (HbA1c), insulin dose, Body Mass Index (BMI), health-related quality of life (CHU9D; CHQ-PF28), health service use and patient-clinician communication. Assessments will be taken at baseline (T0), 8 weeks (T1) and at 6-month follow-up (T2). Discussion The goal of this feasibility trial is to assess the delivery of STAK-D to promote physical activity among children with T1DM, and to assess the potential for further, definitive research to demonstrate its effectiveness. Results will provide the information necessary to design a larger randomised controlled trial and maximise the recruitment rate, intervention delivery and trial retention. Trial registration ISRCTN, ISRCTN48994721. Registered on 28 October 2016. Electronic supplementary material The online version of this article (doi:10.1186/s13063-016-1719-0) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Holly Blake
- University of Nottingham School of Health Sciences, A Floor, Queen's Medical Centre, Nottingham, NG7 2HA, UK.
| | - Helen Quirk
- University of Nottingham School of Health Sciences, A Floor, Queen's Medical Centre, Nottingham, NG7 2HA, UK
| | - Paul Leighton
- University of Nottingham School of Medicine, C Floor, South Block, Queen's Medical Centre, Nottingham, NG7 2UH, UK
| | - Tabitha Randell
- Department of Paediatric Endocrinology and Diabetes, Nottingham Children's Hospital, Nottingham University Hospitals NHS Trust, Nottingham, NG7 2UH, UK
| | - James Greening
- Children's Hospital, Leicester Royal Infirmary, Children's Diabetes and Endocrinology, Infirmary Square, Leicester, LE1 5WW, UK
| | - Boliang Guo
- Institute of Mental Health, Innovation Park, Triumph Road, Nottingham, NG7 2TU, UK
| | - Cris Glazebrook
- Institute of Mental Health, B Floor, Innovation Park, Triumph Road, Nottingham, NG7 2TU, UK
| |
Collapse
|
23
|
Howarth E, Moore THM, Welton NJ, Lewis N, Stanley N, MacMillan H, Shaw A, Hester M, Bryden P, Feder G. IMPRoving Outcomes for children exposed to domestic ViolencE (IMPROVE): an evidence synthesis. PUBLIC HEALTH RESEARCH 2016. [DOI: 10.3310/phr04100] [Citation(s) in RCA: 36] [Impact Index Per Article: 4.5] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 01/22/2023] Open
Abstract
BackgroundExposure to domestic violence and abuse (DVA) during childhood and adolescence increases the risk of negative outcomes across the lifespan.ObjectivesTo synthesise evidence on the clinical effectiveness, cost-effectiveness and acceptability of interventions for children exposed to DVA, with the aim of making recommendations for further research.Design(1) A systematic review of controlled trials of interventions; (2) a systematic review of qualitative studies of participant and professional experience of interventions; (3) a network meta-analysis (NMA) of controlled trials and cost-effectiveness analysis; (4) an overview of current UK provision of interventions; and (5) consultations with young people, parents, service providers and commissioners.SettingsNorth America (11), the Netherlands (1) and Israel (1) for the systematic review of controlled trials of interventions; the USA (4) and the UK (1) for the systematic review of qualitative studies of participant and professional experience of interventions; and the UK for the overview of current UK provision of interventions and consultations with young people, parents, service providers and commissioners.ParticipantsA total of 1345 children for the systematic review of controlled trials of interventions; 100 children, 202 parents and 39 professionals for the systematic review of qualitative studies of participant and professional experience of interventions; and 16 young people, six parents and 20 service providers and commissioners for the consultation with young people, parents, service providers and commissioners.InterventionsPsychotherapeutic, advocacy, parenting skills and advocacy, psychoeducation, psychoeducation and advocacy, guided self-help.Main outcome measuresInternalising symptoms and externalising behaviour, mood, depression symptoms and diagnosis, post-traumatic stress disorder symptoms and self-esteem for the systematic review of controlled trials of interventions and NMA; views about and experience of interventions for the systematic review of qualitative studies of participant and professional experience of interventions and consultations.Data sourcesMEDLINE, Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature, PsycINFO, EMBASE, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, Science Citation Index, Applied Social Sciences Index and Abstracts, International Bibliography of the Social Sciences, Social Services Abstracts, Social Care Online, Sociological Abstracts, Social Science Citation Index, World Health Organization trials portal and clinicaltrials.gov.Review methodsA narrative review; a NMA and incremental cost-effectiveness analysis; and a qualitative synthesis.ResultsThe evidence base on targeted interventions was small, with limited settings and types of interventions; children were mostly < 14 years of age, and there was an absence of comparative studies. The interventions evaluated in trials were mostly psychotherapeutic and psychoeducational interventions delivered to the non-abusive parent and child, usually based on the child’s exposure to DVA (not specific clinical or broader social needs). Qualitative studies largely focused on psychoeducational interventions, some of which included the abusive parent. The evidence for clinical effectiveness was as follows: 11 trials reported improvements in behavioural or mental health outcomes, with modest effect sizes but significant heterogeneity and high or unclear risk of bias. Psychoeducational group-based interventions delivered to the child were found to be more effective for improving mental health outcomes than other types of intervention. Interventions delivered to (non-abusive) parents and to children were most likely to be effective for improving behavioural outcomes. However, there is a large degree of uncertainty around comparisons, particularly with regard to mental health outcomes. In terms of evidence of cost-effectiveness, there were no economic studies of interventions. Cost-effectiveness was modelled on the basis of the NMA, estimating differences between types of interventions. The outcomes measured in trials were largely confined to children’s mental health and behavioural symptoms and disorders, although stakeholders’ concepts of success were broader, suggesting that a broader range of outcomes should be measured in trials. Group-based psychoeducational interventions delivered to children and non-abusive parents in parallel were largely acceptable to all stakeholders. There is limited evidence for the acceptability of other types of intervention. In terms of the UK evidence base and service delivery landscape, there were no UK-based trials, few qualitative studies and little widespread service evaluation. Most programmes are group-based psychoeducational interventions. However, the funding crisis in the DVA sector is significantly undermining programme delivery.ConclusionsThe evidence base regarding the acceptability, clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of interventions to improve outcomes for children exposed to DVA is underdeveloped. There is an urgent need for more high-quality studies, particularly trials, that are designed to produce actionable, generalisable findings that can be implemented in real-world settings and that can inform decisions about which interventions to commission and scale. We suggest that there is a need to pause the development of new interventions and to focus on the systematic evaluation of existing programmes. With regard to the UK, we have identified three types of programme that could be justifiably prioritised for further study: psycho-education delivered to mothers and children, or children alone; parent skills training in combination with advocacy: and interventions involving the abusive parent/caregiver. We also suggest that there is need for key stakeholders to come together to explicitly identify and address the structural, practical and cultural barriers that may have hampered the development of the UK evidence base to date.Future work recommendationsThere is a need for well-designed, well-conducted and well-reported UK-based randomised controlled trials with cost-effectiveness analyses and nested qualitative studies. Development of consensus in the field about core outcome data sets is required. There is a need for further exploration of the acceptability and effectiveness of interventions for specific groups of children and young people (i.e. based on ethnicity, age, trauma exposure and clinical profile). There is also a need for an investigation of the context in which interventions are delivered, including organisational setting and the broader community context, and the evaluation of qualities, qualifications and disciplines of personnel delivering interventions. We recommend prioritisation of psychoeducational interventions and parent skills training delivered in combination with advocacy in the next phase of trials, and exploratory trials of interventions that engage both the abusive and the non-abusive parent.Study registrationThis study is registered as PROSPERO CRD42013004348 and PROSPERO CRD420130043489.FundingThe National Institute for Health Research Public Health Research programme.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Emma Howarth
- National Institute for Health Research Collaboration for Leadership in Applied Health Research and Care East of England (NIHR CLAHRC EoE), Cambridge, UK
- Cambridge Institute of Public Health, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, UK
| | - Theresa HM Moore
- National Institute for Health Research Collaboration for Leadership in Applied Health Research and Care West (NIHR CLAHRC West) at University Hospitals Bristol NHS Foundation Trust, Bristol, UK
- School of Social and Community Medicine, University of Bristol, Bristol, UK
| | - Nicky J Welton
- School of Social and Community Medicine, University of Bristol, Bristol, UK
| | - Natalia Lewis
- Centre for Academic Primary Care, School of Social and Community Medicine, University of Bristol, Bristol, UK
| | - Nicky Stanley
- Connect Centre, School of Social Work, Care and Community, University of Central Lancashire, Preston, UK
| | - Harriet MacMillan
- Psychiatry and Behavioural Neurosciences, and Pediatrics, McMaster University, Hamilton, ON, Canada
| | - Alison Shaw
- Centre for Academic Primary Care, School of Social and Community Medicine, University of Bristol, Bristol, UK
| | - Marianne Hester
- School for Policy Studies, University of Bristol, Bristol, UK
| | - Peter Bryden
- School of Social and Community Medicine, University of Bristol, Bristol, UK
| | - Gene Feder
- Centre for Academic Primary Care, School of Social and Community Medicine, University of Bristol, Bristol, UK
| |
Collapse
|
24
|
Kapadia MZ, Askie L, Hartling L, Contopoulos-Ioannidis D, Bhutta ZA, Soll R, Moher D, Offringa M. 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. BMJ Open 2016; 6:e010270. [PMID: 27091820 PMCID: PMC4838710 DOI: 10.1136/bmjopen-2015-010270] [Citation(s) in RCA: 12] [Impact Index Per Article: 1.5] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 12/17/2022] Open
Abstract
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.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Mufiza Z Kapadia
- Department of Child Health Evaluative Sciences, Research Institute, The Hospital for Sick Children, University of Toronto, Toronto, Ontario, Canada
| | - Lisa Askie
- Systematic Reviews & Health Technology Assessment, NHMRC Clinical Trials Centre, the University of Sydney, Sydney, New South Wales, Australia
| | - Lisa Hartling
- Department of Pediatrics, Alberta Research Centre for Health Evidence, University of Alberta, Edmonton, Alberta, Canada
| | - Despina Contopoulos-Ioannidis
- Department of Pediatrics, Division of Infectious Diseases, Stanford University School of Medicine, and Meta Research Innovation Center at Stanford (METRICS), Stanford, California, USA
| | - Zulfiqar A Bhutta
- Department of Child Health Evaluative Sciences, Research Institute, The Hospital for Sick Children, University of Toronto, Toronto, Ontario, Canada
| | - Roger Soll
- Department of Pediatrics, University of Vermont College of Medicine; Vermont Oxford Network, Burlington, Vermont, USA
| | - David Moher
- Centres for Practice-Changing Research, Ottawa Hospital Research Institute, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada
| | - Martin Offringa
- Department of Child Health Evaluative Sciences, Research Institute, The Hospital for Sick Children, University of Toronto, Toronto, Ontario, Canada
| |
Collapse
|
25
|
Clyburne-Sherin AVP, Thurairajah P, Kapadia MZ, Sampson M, Chan WWY, Offringa M. Recommendations and evidence for reporting items in pediatric clinical trial protocols and reports: two systematic reviews. Trials 2015; 16:417. [PMID: 26385379 PMCID: PMC4574457 DOI: 10.1186/s13063-015-0954-0] [Citation(s) in RCA: 25] [Impact Index Per Article: 2.8] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 02/26/2015] [Accepted: 09/11/2015] [Indexed: 02/06/2023] Open
Abstract
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.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- April V P Clyburne-Sherin
- The Hospital for Sick Children, Peter Gilgan Centre for Research and Learning, SickKids Research Institute, Child Health Evaluative Sciences, 686 Bay Street, Toronto, ON, M5G 0A4, Canada.
| | - Pravheen Thurairajah
- The Hospital for Sick Children, Peter Gilgan Centre for Research and Learning, SickKids Research Institute, Child Health Evaluative Sciences, 686 Bay Street, Toronto, ON, M5G 0A4, Canada.
| | - Mufiza Z Kapadia
- The Hospital for Sick Children, Peter Gilgan Centre for Research and Learning, SickKids Research Institute, Child Health Evaluative Sciences, 686 Bay Street, Toronto, ON, M5G 0A4, Canada.
| | - Margaret Sampson
- Children's Hospital of Eastern Ontario, 401 Smyth Road, Ottawa, ON, K1H 8L1, Canada.
| | - Winnie W Y Chan
- The Hospital for Sick Children, Peter Gilgan Centre for Research and Learning, SickKids Research Institute, Child Health Evaluative Sciences, 686 Bay Street, Toronto, ON, M5G 0A4, Canada.
| | - Martin Offringa
- The Hospital for Sick Children, Peter Gilgan Centre for Research and Learning, SickKids Research Institute, Child Health Evaluative Sciences, 686 Bay Street, Toronto, ON, M5G 0A4, Canada. .,Senior Scientist and Program Head Child Health Evaluative Sciences, The Hospital for Sick Children, Peter Gilgan Centre for Research and Learning, SickKids Research Institute, 686 Bay Street, Toronto, ON, M5G 0A4, Canada.
| |
Collapse
|