↓ Skip to main content

Ethics Review of Pediatric Multi-Center Drug Trials

Overview of attention for article published in Pediatric Drugs, October 2014
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (82nd percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (85th percentile)

Mentioned by

blogs
1 blog
twitter
1 X user

Citations

dimensions_citation
15 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
16 Mendeley
Title
Ethics Review of Pediatric Multi-Center Drug Trials
Published in
Pediatric Drugs, October 2014
DOI 10.1007/s40272-014-0098-9
Pubmed ID
Authors

Allison C. Needham, Mufiza Z. Kapadia, Martin Offringa

Abstract

The assessment of safety and efficacy of therapeutics for children and adolescents requires the use of multi-centered designs. However, the need to obtain ethical approval from multiple independent research ethics boards (REBs) presents as a challenge to investigators and sponsors who must consider local requirements while ensuring that the protection of human subjects is consistent across sites. In pediatrics, this requirement is complicated by pediatric-specific ethical concerns such as the acquisition of assent and consent and the need for pediatric expertise to assess the scholarly merit of the proposed research. Efforts to tackle these challenges have focused on the process of ethics review, which will improve efficiency. In addition to improving process, we suggest further research to fill gaps in the evidence base for recommendations and decisions made by REBs, specifically their effectiveness to protect human subjects. Evidence gathered will contribute to the successful development, adoption and implementation of harmonized guidance to apply ethics principles in order to protect children through research rather than from research.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 X user who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 16 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Canada 1 6%
Unknown 15 94%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 3 19%
Student > Ph. D. Student 3 19%
Other 2 13%
Student > Doctoral Student 2 13%
Professor 2 13%
Other 4 25%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 7 44%
Nursing and Health Professions 2 13%
Philosophy 2 13%
Environmental Science 1 6%
Social Sciences 1 6%
Other 3 19%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 8. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 06 March 2017.
All research outputs
#3,975,213
of 22,768,097 outputs
Outputs from Pediatric Drugs
#72
of 551 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#46,441
of 260,456 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Pediatric Drugs
#2
of 14 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,768,097 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 82nd percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 551 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 5.5. This one has done well, scoring higher than 86% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 260,456 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 82% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 14 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 85% of its contemporaries.