↓ Skip to main content

The Effects of Industry Sponsorship on Comparator Selection in Trial Registrations for Neuropsychiatric Conditions in Children

Overview of attention for article published in PLoS ONE, December 2013
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
2 tweeters

Citations

dimensions_citation
12 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
52 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
The Effects of Industry Sponsorship on Comparator Selection in Trial Registrations for Neuropsychiatric Conditions in Children
Published in
PLoS ONE, December 2013
DOI 10.1371/journal.pone.0084951
Pubmed ID
Authors

Adam G. Dunn, Kenneth D. Mandl, Enrico Coiera, Florence T. Bourgeois

Abstract

Pediatric populations continue to be understudied in clinical drug trials despite the increasing use of pharmacotherapy in children, particularly with psychotropic drugs. Most pertinent to the clinical selection of drug interventions are trials directly comparing drugs against other drugs. The aim was to measure the prevalence of active drug comparators in neuropsychiatric drug trials in children and identify the effects of funding source on comparator selection. We analyzed the selection of drugs and drug comparisons in clinical trials registered between January 2006 and May 2012. Completed and ongoing interventional trials examining treatments for six neuropsychiatric conditions in children were included. Networks of drug comparisons for each condition were constructed using information about the trial study arms. Of 421 eligible trial registrations, 228 (63,699 participants) were drug trials addressing ADHD (106 trials), autism spectrum disorders (47), unipolar depression (16), seizure disorders (38), migraines and other headaches (15), or schizophrenia (11). Active drug comparators were used in only 11.0% of drug trials while 44.7% used a placebo control and 44.3% no drug or placebo comparator. Even among conditions with well-established pharmacotherapeutic options, almost all drug interventions were compared to a placebo. Active comparisons were more common among trials without industry funding (17% vs. 8%, p=0.04). Trials with industry funding differed from non-industry trials in terms of the drugs studied and the comparators selected. For 73% (61/84) of drugs and 90% (19/21) of unique comparisons, trials were funded exclusively by either industry or non-industry. We found that industry and non-industry differed when choosing comparators and active drug comparators were rare for both groups. This gap in pediatric research activity limits the evidence available to clinicians treating children and suggests a need to reassess the design and funding of pediatric trials in order to optimize the information derived from pediatric participation in clinical trials.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 2 tweeters who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 52 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United Kingdom 2 4%
France 1 2%
United States 1 2%
Unknown 48 92%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 9 17%
Student > Master 9 17%
Unspecified 8 15%
Other 6 12%
Student > Doctoral Student 5 10%
Other 15 29%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 18 35%
Psychology 10 19%
Unspecified 8 15%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 4 8%
Social Sciences 4 8%
Other 8 15%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. 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 08 October 2014.
All research outputs
#9,882,654
of 12,340,937 outputs
Outputs from PLoS ONE
#100,474
of 135,367 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#152,223
of 223,759 outputs
Outputs of similar age from PLoS ONE
#5,574
of 7,999 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 12,340,937 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 11th percentile – i.e., 11% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 135,367 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 11.7. This one is in the 14th percentile – i.e., 14% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
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 223,759 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 16th percentile – i.e., 16% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 7,999 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 19th percentile – i.e., 19% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.