FRINK Linked Data Fragments server

Matches in SemOpenAlex for { <https://semopenalex.org/work/W3197199537> ?p ?o ?g. }

• W3197199537 endingPage "e2021051589" @default.
• W3197199537 startingPage "e2021051589" @default.
• W3197199537 abstract "A series of policies and laws coupled with improved awareness of the importance of evidence to inform practice have led to a significant increase in the number of pediatric clinical trials. In a report in this month’s Pediatrics, Cho and colleagues1 raise a host of important questions.Cho et al used ClinicalTrials.gov to examine the landscape of nonvaccine pediatric trials with an enrollment >1000. Unsurprisingly, they found an imperfect relationship between burden of disease and number of clinical trials. They also found that the vast majority of investigators were from high-income countries as opposed to low- or middle-income countries. The majority of trials in their sample were funded by nonprofit and public organizations. As best they could ascertain, less than two-thirds of completed trials were published within 12 months of completion. Most investigators were from high-income countries.The analysis is focused on large trials with an emphasis on whether the trials assessed mortality as an outcome. Although diseases with a high mortality might best be addressed by large trials, many diseases of children are nonfatal or chronic diseases with a low mortality where other primary outcome measures may be more appropriate.Although this analysis has a number of limitations, including the imperfect representation of non-US trials in ClinicalTrials.gov, it is important to recognize the value of monitoring the trial landscape using registry data. Without ClinicalTrials.gov it would be difficult or impossible to review the broad clinical trials enterprise (CTE). Multiple analyses2,3 of the overall trial enterprise using ClinicalTrials.gov have pointed to trends in the CTE. The good news is that almost all trials are registered before enrollment starts, as required by law for applicable trials including a US site. Additionally, many trials are well designed, answer the intended question that is appropriately prioritized, and publicly and transparently report results. However, there remain too many other trials that are not well designed, lack adequate statistical power, or address redundant or unimportant questions. A significant number of trials do not reach completion, and many completed trials fail to report their results in a timely manner, even when legally required to do so.These trends pertain to trials in children as well as in adults. Of course, there are many specific issues to be addressed in trials involving children. Because children cannot give consent to participate, trials may be more difficult to conduct and may be more expensive. Children of different ages and stages of development have distinctly different health issues, and the design of medical products, including sizing of devices and dosing and methods of administration of drugs, are heterogeneous.Cho et al chose to focus on nonvaccine large trials and to exclude cluster randomized controlled trials from their analysis. Although these decisions are sensible from one perspective, it would be useful to see the full view of trial designs. For example, cluster randomized controlled trials may be the more efficient design for studying certain infectious diseases or nutrition-based conditions that account for much pediatric death and disability in low- or middle-income countries.Other conditions of interest that are not addressed by this analysis are now the focus of important policy considerations. For example, pregnancy can be a high-risk situation that is understudied. In addition, studies of rare genetic diseases are important yet challenging; single-arm studies are common4 and trials are labor intensive, complicated, and often judged to be infeasible.Improvement in the ability of low-income countries to conduct large trials for high burden diseases would take an unprecedented level of funding, international collaboration, and positive views of interventional, randomized trials. At a time when the world is seriously considering rebuilding infrastructure after the pandemic, an adequate infrastructure for clinical trials should be a focus. Just as we need roads, bridges, and broadband Internet, we need a clinical trials infrastructure that can produce needed answers about how to prevent, diagnose, and treat both the leading causes of death and disability and the many less-common causes of disability and poor quality of life in children and adults.Without clear goals for the optimal CTE, however, it will be difficult to assess current effort, make the case for greater investment and changes in the structure, and monitor the impact of whatever changes or investments are made. We should continuously reassess our goals, change policies to attempt to achieve those goals, measure, and iterate to refine policies, structures, and operations until we reach the desired state. It is not beyond the reach of our combined human and technological talent to assure parents and their children that we can have high quality evidence about every disease, driven by transparency and purposeful optimization of effort to answer the questions that are most important to improve health outcomes and quality of life." @default.
• W3197199537 created "2021-09-13" @default.
• W3197199537 creator A5000030255 @default.
• W3197199537 creator A5060829829 @default.
• W3197199537 date "2021-08-31" @default.
• W3197199537 modified "2023-09-25" @default.
• W3197199537 title "Monitoring the Pediatric Clinical Trials Enterprise" @default.
• W3197199537 cites W2017857169 @default.
• W3197199537 cites W2103044501 @default.
• W3197199537 cites W2987102569 @default.
• W3197199537 cites W3197143330 @default.
• W3197199537 doi "https://doi.org/10.1542/peds.2021-051589" @default.
• W3197199537 hasPubMedId "https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34465589" @default.
• W3197199537 hasPublicationYear "2021" @default.
• W3197199537 type Work @default.
• W3197199537 sameAs 3197199537 @default.
• W3197199537 citedByCount "0" @default.
• W3197199537 crossrefType "journal-article" @default.
• W3197199537 hasAuthorship W3197199537A5000030255 @default.
• W3197199537 hasAuthorship W3197199537A5060829829 @default.
• W3197199537 hasConcept C126322002 @default.
• W3197199537 hasConcept C177713679 @default.
• W3197199537 hasConcept C19527891 @default.
• W3197199537 hasConcept C535046627 @default.
• W3197199537 hasConcept C71924100 @default.
• W3197199537 hasConceptScore W3197199537C126322002 @default.
• W3197199537 hasConceptScore W3197199537C177713679 @default.
• W3197199537 hasConceptScore W3197199537C19527891 @default.
• W3197199537 hasConceptScore W3197199537C535046627 @default.
• W3197199537 hasConceptScore W3197199537C71924100 @default.
• W3197199537 hasIssue "3" @default.
• W3197199537 hasLocation W31971995371 @default.
• W3197199537 hasLocation W31971995372 @default.
• W3197199537 hasOpenAccess W3197199537 @default.
• W3197199537 hasPrimaryLocation W31971995371 @default.
• W3197199537 hasRelatedWork W178704668 @default.
• W3197199537 hasRelatedWork W1977867207 @default.
• W3197199537 hasRelatedWork W2008247344 @default.
• W3197199537 hasRelatedWork W2032098698 @default.
• W3197199537 hasRelatedWork W2052303540 @default.
• W3197199537 hasRelatedWork W2085862598 @default.
• W3197199537 hasRelatedWork W2136006960 @default.
• W3197199537 hasRelatedWork W2566747388 @default.
• W3197199537 hasRelatedWork W2792930387 @default.
• W3197199537 hasRelatedWork W4252371801 @default.
• W3197199537 hasVolume "148" @default.
• W3197199537 isParatext "false" @default.
• W3197199537 isRetracted "false" @default.
• W3197199537 magId "3197199537" @default.
• W3197199537 workType "article" @default.