A Decade of Efforts to Add Value to Child Health Research Practices.

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.

Remote ischemic post-conditioning for neonatal encephalopathy: a safety and feasibility trial.

BACKGROUND: Despite implementation of therapeutic hypothermia (TH) for infants with neonatal encephalopathy (NE), a significant proportion of infants suffer neurodevelopmental impairment (NDI). Remote ischemic conditioning (RIC) is a proposed neuroprotective maneuver that has been studied in adults with brain injury, but it has not been previously investigated in infants with NE. METHODS: We performed a prospective, randomized, safety and dose escalation study in 32 neonates with NE. Four cohorts of consecutive patients were randomized to RIC therapy, including four cycles of limb ischemia and reperfusion on progressive days of TH, or sham. Clinical, biochemical, and safety outcomes were monitored in both groups. RESULTS: All patients received the designated RIC therapy without interruption or delay. RIC was not associated with increased pain, vascular, cutaneous, muscular, or neural safety events. There was no difference in the incidence of seizures, brain injury, or mortality between the two groups with the escalation of RIC dose and frequency. CONCLUSIONS: We found that RIC is a safe and feasible adjunctive therapy for neonates with NE undergoing TH. IMPACT: This pilot study establishes critical safety and feasibility data that are necessary for the design of future studies to investigate the potential efficacy of RIC to reduce NDI. IMPACT: Remote ischemic conditioning (RIC) is a possible neuroprotective intervention in infants with hypoxic-ischemic encephalopathy (HIE). RIC can be administered concurrently with therapeutic hypothermia without any notable adverse events. Future studies will need to address potential efficacy of RIC to improve neurodevelopmental outcomes, as well as consider the ideal temporal window and dose for RIC in this patient population.

Adaptive designs in clinical trials: a systematic review-part I.

BACKGROUND: Adaptive designs (ADs) are intended to make clinical trials more flexible, offering efficiency and potentially cost-saving benefits. Despite a large number of statistical methods in the literature on different adaptations to trials, the characteristics, advantages and limitations of such designs remain unfamiliar to large parts of the clinical and research community. This systematic review provides an overview of the use of ADs in published clinical trials (Part I). A follow-up (Part II) will compare the application of AD in trials in adult and pediatric studies, to provide real-world examples and recommendations for the child health community. METHODS: Published studies from 2010 to April 2020 were searched in the following databases: MEDLINE (Ovid), Embase (Ovid), and International Pharmaceutical Abstracts (Ovid). Clinical trial protocols, reports, and a secondary analyses using AD were included. We excluded trial registrations and interventions other than drugs or vaccines to align with regulatory guidance. Data from the published literature on study characteristics, types of adaptations, statistical analysis, stopping boundaries, logistical challenges, operational considerations and ethical considerations were extracted and summarized herein. RESULTS: Out of 23,886 retrieved studies, 317 publications of adaptive trials, 267 (84.2%) trial reports, and 50 (15.8%) study protocols), were included. The most frequent disease was oncology (168/317, 53%). Most trials included only adult participants (265, 83.9%),16 trials (5.4%) were limited to only children and 28 (8.9%) were for both children and adults, 8 trials did not report the ages of the included populations. Some studies reported using more than one adaptation (there were 390 reported adaptations in 317 clinical trial reports). Most trials were early in drug development (phase I, II (276/317, 87%). Dose-finding designs were used in the highest proportion of the included trials (121/317, 38.2 %). Adaptive randomization (53/317, 16.7%), with drop-the-losers (or pick-the-winner) designs specifically reported in 29 trials (9.1%) and seamless phase 2-3 design was reported in 27 trials (8.5%). Continual reassessment methods (60/317, 18.9%) and group sequential design (47/317, 14.8%) were also reported. Approximately two-thirds of trials used frequentist statistical methods (203/309, 64%), while Bayesian methods were reported in 24% (75/309) of included trials. CONCLUSION: This review provides a comprehensive report of methodological features in adaptive clinical trials reported between 2010 and 2020. Adaptation details were not uniformly reported, creating limitations in interpretation and generalizability. Nevertheless, implementation of existing reporting guidelines on ADs and the development of novel educational strategies that address the scientific, operational challenges and ethical considerations can help in the clinical trial community to decide on when and how to implement ADs in clinical trials. STUDY PROTOCOL REGISTRATION: https://doi.org/10.1186/s13063-018-2934-7 .

Guideline for reporting systematic reviews of outcome measurement instruments (OMIs): PRISMA-COSMIN for OMIs 2024.

PURPOSE: Although comprehensive and widespread guidelines on how to conduct systematic reviews of outcome measurement instruments (OMIs) exist, for example from the COSMIN (COnsensus-based Standards for the selection of health Measurement INstruments) initiative, key information is often missing in published reports. This article describes the development of an extension of the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) 2020 guideline: PRISMA-COSMIN for OMIs 2024. METHODS: The development process followed the Enhancing the QUAlity and Transparency Of health Research (EQUATOR) guidelines and included a literature search, expert consultations, a Delphi study, a hybrid workgroup meeting, pilot testing, and an end-of-project meeting, with integrated patient/public involvement. RESULTS: From the literature and expert consultation, 49 potentially relevant reporting items were identified. Round 1 of the Delphi study was completed by 103 panelists, whereas round 2 and 3 were completed by 78 panelists. After 3 rounds, agreement (≥ 67%) on inclusion and wording was reached for 44 items. Eleven items without consensus for inclusion and/or wording were discussed at a workgroup meeting attended by 24 participants. Agreement was reached for the inclusion and wording of 10 items, and the deletion of 1 item. Pilot testing with 65 authors of OMI systematic reviews further improved the guideline through minor changes in wording and structure, finalized during the end-of-project meeting. The final checklist to facilitate the reporting of full systematic review reports contains 54 (sub)items addressing the review's title, abstract, plain language summary, open science, introduction, methods, results, and discussion. Thirteen items pertaining to the title and abstract are also included in a separate abstract checklist, guiding authors in reporting for example conference abstracts. CONCLUSION: PRISMA-COSMIN for OMIs 2024 consists of two checklists (full reports; abstracts), their corresponding explanation and elaboration documents detailing the rationale and examples for each item, and a data flow diagram. PRISMA-COSMIN for OMIs 2024 can improve the reporting of systematic reviews of OMIs, fostering their reproducibility and allowing end-users to appraise the quality of OMIs and select the most appropriate OMI for a specific application. NOTE: In order to encourage its wide dissemination this article is freely accessible on the web sites of the journals: Health and Quality of Life Outcomes; Journal of Clinical Epidemiology; Journal of Patient-Reported Outcomes; Quality of Life Research.

Methodological quality of 100 recent systematic reviews of health-related outcome measurement instruments: an overview of reviews.

PURPOSE: Systematic reviews evaluating and comparing the measurement properties of outcome measurement instruments (OMIs) play an important role in OMI selection. Earlier overviews of review quality (2007, 2014) evidenced substantial concerns with regards to alignment to scientific standards. This overview aimed to investigate whether the quality of recent systematic reviews of OMIs lives up to the current scientific standards. METHODS: One hundred systematic reviews of OMIs published from June 1, 2021 onwards were randomly selected through a systematic literature search performed on March 17, 2022 in MEDLINE and EMBASE. The quality of systematic reviews was appraised by two independent reviewers. An updated data extraction form was informed by the earlier studies, and results were compared to these earlier studies' findings. RESULTS: A quarter of the reviews had an unclear research question or aim, and in 22% of the reviews the search strategy did not match the aim. Half of the reviews had an incomprehensive search strategy, because relevant search terms were not included. In 63% of the reviews (compared to 41% in 2014 and 30% in 2007) a risk of bias assessment was conducted. In 73% of the reviews (some) measurement properties were evaluated (58% in 2014 and 55% in 2007). In 60% of the reviews the data were (partly) synthesized (42% in 2014 and 7% in 2007); evaluation of measurement properties and data syntheses was not conducted separately for subscales in the majority. Certainty assessments of the quality of the total body of evidence were conducted in only 33% of reviews (not assessed in 2014 and 2007). The majority (58%) did not make any recommendations on which OMI (not) to use. CONCLUSION: Despite clear improvements in risk of bias assessments, measurement property evaluation and data synthesis, specifying the research question, conducting the search strategy and performing a certainty assessment remain poor. To ensure that systematic reviews of OMIs meet current scientific standards, more consistent conduct and reporting of systematic reviews of OMIs is needed.

Guideline for reporting systematic reviews of outcome measurement instruments (OMIs): PRISMA-COSMIN for OMIs 2024.

PURPOSE: Although comprehensive and widespread guidelines on how to conduct systematic reviews of outcome measurement instruments (OMIs) exist, for example from the COSMIN (COnsensus-based Standards for the selection of health Measurement INstruments) initiative, key information is often missing in published reports. This article describes the development of an extension of the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) 2020 guideline: PRISMA-COSMIN for OMIs 2024. METHODS: The development process followed the Enhancing the QUAlity and Transparency Of health Research (EQUATOR) guidelines and included a literature search, expert consultations, a Delphi study, a hybrid workgroup meeting, pilot testing, and an end-of-project meeting, with integrated patient/public involvement. RESULTS: From the literature and expert consultation, 49 potentially relevant reporting items were identified. Round 1 of the Delphi study was completed by 103 panelists, whereas round 2 and 3 were completed by 78 panelists. After 3 rounds, agreement (≥ 67%) on inclusion and wording was reached for 44 items. Eleven items without consensus for inclusion and/or wording were discussed at a workgroup meeting attended by 24 participants. Agreement was reached for the inclusion and wording of 10 items, and the deletion of 1 item. Pilot testing with 65 authors of OMI systematic reviews further improved the guideline through minor changes in wording and structure, finalized during the end-of-project meeting. The final checklist to facilitate the reporting of full systematic review reports contains 54 (sub)items addressing the review's title, abstract, plain language summary, open science, introduction, methods, results, and discussion. Thirteen items pertaining to the title and abstract are also included in a separate abstract checklist, guiding authors in reporting for example conference abstracts. CONCLUSION: PRISMA-COSMIN for OMIs 2024 consists of two checklists (full reports; abstracts), their corresponding explanation and elaboration documents detailing the rationale and examples for each item, and a data flow diagram. PRISMA-COSMIN for OMIs 2024 can improve the reporting of systematic reviews of OMIs, fostering their reproducibility and allowing end-users to appraise the quality of OMIs and select the most appropriate OMI for a specific application. NOTE: In order to encourage its wide dissemination this article is freely accessible on the web sites of the journals: Health and Quality of Life Outcomes; Journal of Clinical Epidemiology; Journal of Patient-Reported Outcomes; Quality of Life Research.

Corticosteroids for the prevention and treatment of bronchopulmonary dysplasia: an overview of systematic reviews.

BACKGROUND: Bronchopulmonary dysplasia (BPD) remains an important complication of prematurity. Pulmonary inflammation plays a central role in the pathogenesis of BPD, explaining the rationale for investigating postnatal corticosteroids. Multiple systematic reviews (SRs) have summarised the evidence from numerous randomised controlled trials (RCTs) investigating different aspects of administrating postnatal corticosteroids. Besides beneficial effects on the outcome of death or BPD, potential short- and long-term harms have been reported. OBJECTIVES: The primary objective of this overview was to summarise and appraise the evidence from SRs regarding the efficacy and safety of postnatal corticosteroids in preterm infants at risk of developing BPD. METHODS: We searched the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL, and Epistemonikos for SRs in April 2023. We included all SRs assessing any form of postnatal corticosteroid administration in preterm populations with the objective of ameliorating pulmonary disease. All regimens and comparisons were included. Two review authors independently checked the eligibility of the SRs comparing corticosteroids with placebo, and corticosteroids with different routes of administration and regimens. The included outcomes, considered key drivers in the decision to administer postnatal corticosteroids, were the composite outcome of death or BPD at 36 weeks' postmenstrual age (PMA), its individual components, long-term neurodevelopmental sequelae, sepsis, and gastrointestinal tract perforation. We independently assessed the methodological quality of the included SRs by using AMSTAR 2 (A Measurement Tool to Assess Systematic Reviews) and ROBIS (Risk Of Bias In Systematic reviews) tools. We assessed the certainty of the evidence using GRADE. We provided a narrative description of the characteristics, methodological quality, and results of the included SRs. MAIN RESULTS: We included nine SRs (seven Cochrane, two non-Cochrane) containing 87 RCTs, 1 follow-up study, and 9419 preterm infants, investigating the effects of postnatal corticosteroids to prevent or treat BPD. The quality of the included SRs according to AMSTAR 2 varied from high to critically low. Risk of bias according to ROBIS was low. The certainty of the evidence according to GRADE ranged from very low to moderate. Early initiated systemic dexamethasone (< seven days after birth) likely has a beneficial effect on death or BPD at 36 weeks' PMA (risk ratio (RR) 0.88, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.81 to 0.95; number needed to treat for an additional beneficial outcome (NNTB) 16, 95% CI 10 to 41; I2 = 39%; 17 studies; 2791 infants; moderate-certainty evidence) and on BPD at 36 weeks' PMA (RR 0.72, 95% CI 0.63 to 0.82; NNTB 13, 95% CI 9 to 21; I2 = 39%; 17 studies; 2791 infants; moderate-certainty evidence). Early initiated systemic hydrocortisone may also have a beneficial effect on death or BPD at 36 weeks' PMA (RR 0.90, 95% CI 0.82 to 0.99; NNTB 18, 95% CI 9 to 594; I2 = 43%; 9 studies; 1376 infants; low-certainty evidence). However, these benefits are likely accompanied by harmful effects like cerebral palsy or neurosensory disability (dexamethasone) or gastrointestinal perforation (both dexamethasone and hydrocortisone). Late initiated systemic dexamethasone (≥ seven days after birth) may have a beneficial effect on death or BPD at 36 weeks' PMA (RR 0.75, 95% CI 0.67 to 0.84; NNTB 5, 95% CI 4 to 9; I2 = 61%; 12 studies; 553 infants; low-certainty evidence), mostly contributed to by a beneficial effect on BPD at 36 weeks' PMA (RR 0.76, 95% CI 0.66 to 0.87; NNTB 6, 95% CI 4 to 13; I2 = 14%; 12 studies; 553 infants; low-certainty evidence). No harmful side effects were shown in the outcomes chosen as key drivers to the decision to start or withhold late systemic dexamethasone. No effects, either beneficial or harmful, were found in the subgroup meta-analyses of late hydrocortisone studies. Early initiated inhaled corticosteroids probably have a beneficial effect on death and BPD at 36 weeks' PMA (RR 0.86, 95% CI 0.75 to 0.99; NNTB 19, 95% CI not applicable; I2 = 0%; 6 studies; 1285 infants; moderate-certainty evidence), with no apparent adverse effects shown in the SRs. In contrast, late initiated inhaled corticosteroids do not appear to have any benefits or harms. Endotracheal instillation of corticosteroids (budesonide) with surfactant as a carrier likely has a beneficial effect on death or BPD at 36 weeks' PMA (RR 0.60, 95% CI 0.49 to 0.74; NNTB 4, 95% CI 3 to 6; I2 = 0%; 2 studies; 381 infants; moderate-certainty evidence) and on BPD at 36 weeks' PMA. No evidence of harmful effects was found. There was little evidence for effects of different starting doses or timing of systemic corticosteroids on death or BPD at 36 weeks' PMA, but potential adverse effects were observed for some comparisons. Lowering the dose might result in a more unfavourable balance of benefits and harms. Moderately early initiated systemic corticosteroids, compared with early systemic corticosteroids, may result in a higher incidence of BPD at 36 weeks' PMA. Pulse dosing instead of continuous dosing may have a negative effect on death and BPD at 36 weeks' PMA. We found no differences for the comparisons of inhaled versus systemic corticosteroids. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: This overview summarises the evidence of nine SRs investigating the effect of postnatal corticosteroids in preterm infants at risk for BPD. Late initiated (≥ seven days after birth) systemic administration of dexamethasone is considered an effective intervention to reduce the risk of BPD in infants with a high risk profile for BPD, based on a favourable balance between benefits and harms. Endotracheal instillation of corticosteroids (budesonide) with surfactant as a carrier is a promising intervention, based on the beneficial effect on desirable outcomes without (so far) negative side effects. Pending results of ongoing large, multicentre RCTs investigating both short- and long-term effects, endotracheal instillation of corticosteroids (budesonide) with surfactant as a carrier is not appropriate for clinical practice at present. Early initiated (< seven days after birth) systemic dexamethasone and hydrocortisone and late initiated (≥ seven days after birth) hydrocortisone are considered ineffective interventions, because of an unfavourable balance between benefits and harms. No conclusions are possible regarding early and late inhaled corticosteroids, as more research is needed.

Assessing the quality and value of metabolic chart data for capturing core outcomes for pediatric medium-chain acyl-CoA dehydrogenase (MCAD) deficiency.

BACKGROUND: Generating rigorous evidence to inform care for rare diseases requires reliable, sustainable, and longitudinal measurement of priority outcomes. Having developed a core outcome set for pediatric medium-chain acyl-CoA dehydrogenase (MCAD) deficiency, we aimed to assess the feasibility of prospective measurement of these core outcomes during routine metabolic clinic visits. METHODS: We used existing cohort data abstracted from charts of 124 children diagnosed with MCAD deficiency who participated in a Canadian study which collected data from birth to a maximum of 11 years of age to investigate the frequency of clinic visits and quality of metabolic chart data for selected outcomes. We recorded all opportunities to collect outcomes from the medical chart as a function of visit rate to the metabolic clinic, by treatment centre and by child age. We applied a data quality framework to evaluate data based on completeness, conformance, and plausibility for four core MCAD outcomes: emergency department use, fasting time, metabolic decompensation, and death. RESULTS: The frequency of metabolic clinic visits decreased with increasing age, from a rate of 2.8 visits per child per year (95% confidence interval, 2.3-3.3) among infants 2 to 6 months, to 1.0 visit per child per year (95% confidence interval, 0.9-1.2) among those ≥ 5 years of age. Rates of emergency department visits followed anticipated trends by child age. Supplemental findings suggested that some emergency visits occur outside of the metabolic care treatment centre but are not captured. Recommended fasting times were updated relatively infrequently in patients' metabolic charts. Episodes of metabolic decompensation were identifiable but required an operational definition based on acute manifestations most commonly recorded in the metabolic chart. Deaths occurred rarely in these patients and quality of mortality data was not evaluated. CONCLUSIONS: Opportunities to record core outcomes at the metabolic clinic occur at least annually for children with MCAD deficiency. Methods to comprehensively capture emergency care received at outside institutions are needed. To reduce substantial heterogeneous recording of core outcome across treatment centres, improved documentation standards are required for recording of recommended fasting times and a consensus definition for metabolic decompensations needs to be developed and implemented.

Lower versus Traditional Treatment Threshold for Neonatal Hypoglycemia.

BACKGROUND: Worldwide, many newborns who are preterm, small or large for gestational age, or born to mothers with diabetes are screened for hypoglycemia, with a goal of preventing brain injury. However, there is no consensus on a treatment threshold that is safe but also avoids overtreatment. METHODS: In a multicenter, randomized, noninferiority trial involving 689 otherwise healthy newborns born at 35 weeks of gestation or later and identified as being at risk for hypoglycemia, we compared two threshold values for treatment of asymptomatic moderate hypoglycemia. We sought to determine whether a management strategy that used a lower threshold (treatment administered at a glucose concentration of <36 mg per deciliter [2.0 mmol per liter]) would be noninferior to a traditional threshold (treatment at a glucose concentration of <47 mg per deciliter [2.6 mmol per liter]) with respect to psychomotor development at 18 months, assessed with the Bayley Scales of Infant and Toddler Development, third edition, Dutch version (Bayley-III-NL; scores range from 50 to 150 [mean {±SD}, 100±15]), with higher scores indicating more advanced development and 7.5 points (one half the SD) representing a clinically important difference). The lower threshold would be considered noninferior if scores were less than 7.5 points lower than scores in the traditional-threshold group. RESULTS: Bayley-III-NL scores were assessed in 287 of the 348 children (82.5%) in the lower-threshold group and in 295 of the 341 children (86.5%) in the traditional-threshold group. Cognitive and motor outcome scores were similar in the two groups (mean scores [±SE], 102.9±0.7 [cognitive] and 104.6±0.7 [motor] in the lower-threshold group and 102.2±0.7 [cognitive] and 104.9±0.7 [motor] in the traditional-threshold group). The prespecified inferiority limit was not crossed. The mean glucose concentration was 57±0.4 mg per deciliter (3.2±0.02 mmol per liter) in the lower-threshold group and 61±0.5 mg per deciliter (3.4±0.03 mmol per liter) in the traditional-threshold group. Fewer and less severe hypoglycemic episodes occurred in the traditional-threshold group, but that group had more invasive diagnostic and treatment interventions. Serious adverse events in the lower-threshold group included convulsions (during normoglycemia) in one newborn and one death. CONCLUSIONS: In otherwise healthy newborns with asymptomatic moderate hypoglycemia, a lower glucose treatment threshold (36 mg per deciliter) was noninferior to a traditional threshold (47 mg per deciliter) with regard to psychomotor development at 18 months. (Funded by the Netherlands Organization for Health Research and Development; HypoEXIT Current Controlled Trials number, ISRCTN79705768.).

Ethical and practical considerations related to data sharing when collecting patient-reported outcomes in care-based child health research.

PURPOSE: The collection and use of patient reported outcomes (PROs) in care-based child health research raises challenging ethical and logistical questions. This paper offers an analysis of two questions related to PROs in child health research: (1) Is it ethically obligatory, desirable or preferable to share PRO data collected for research with children, families, and health care providers? And if so, (2) What are the characteristics of a model best suited to guide the collection, monitoring, and sharing of these data? METHODS: A multidisciplinary team of researchers, providers, patient and family partners, and ethicists examined the literature and identified a need for focus on PRO sharing in pediatric care-based research. We constructed and analyzed three models for managing pediatric PRO data in care-based research, drawing on ethical principles, logistics, and opportunities to engage with children and families. RESULTS: We argue that it is preferable to share pediatric PRO data with providers, but to manage expectations and balance the risks and benefits of research, this requires a justifiable data sharing model. We argue that a successful PRO data sharing model will allow children and families to have access to and control over their own PRO data and be engaged in decision-making around how PROs collected for research may be integrated into care, but require support from providers. CONCLUSION: We propose a PRO data sharing model that can be used across diverse research settings and contributes to improved transparency, communication, and patient-centered care and research.

Systemic corticosteroid regimens for prevention of bronchopulmonary dysplasia in preterm infants.

BACKGROUND: Systematic reviews showed that systemic postnatal corticosteroids reduce the risk of bronchopulmonary dysplasia (BPD) in preterm infants. However, corticosteroids have also been associated with an increased risk of neurodevelopmental impairment. It is unknown whether these beneficial and adverse effects are modulated by differences in corticosteroid treatment regimens related to type of steroid, timing of treatment initiation, duration, pulse versus continuous delivery, and cumulative dose. OBJECTIVES: To assess the effects of different corticosteroid treatment regimens on mortality, pulmonary morbidity, and neurodevelopmental outcome in very low birth weight infants. SEARCH METHODS: We conducted searches in September 2022 of MEDLINE, the Cochrane Library, Embase, and two trial registries, without date, language or publication- type limits. Other search methods included checking the reference lists of included studies for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and quasi-randomized trials. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included RCTs comparing two or more different treatment regimens of systemic postnatal corticosteroids in preterm infants at risk for BPD, as defined by the original trialists. The following comparisons of intervention were eligible: alternative corticosteroid (e.g. hydrocortisone) versus another corticosteroid (e.g. dexamethasone); lower (experimental arm) versus higher dosage (control arm); later (experimental arm) versus earlier (control arm) initiation of therapy; a pulse-dosage (experimental arm) versus continuous-dosage regimen (control arm); and individually-tailored regimens (experimental arm) based on the pulmonary response versus a standardized (predetermined administered to every infant) regimen (control arm). We excluded placebo-controlled and inhalation corticosteroid studies. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two authors independently assessed eligibility and risk of bias of trials, and extracted data on study design, participant characteristics and the relevant outcomes. We asked the original investigators to verify if data extraction was correct and, if possible, to provide any missing data. We assessed the following primary outcome: the composite outcome mortality or BPD at 36 weeks' postmenstrual age (PMA). Secondary outcomes were: the components of the composite outcome; in-hospital morbidities and pulmonary outcomes, and long-term neurodevelopmental sequelae. We analyzed data using Review Manager 5 and used the GRADE approach to assess the certainty of the evidence. MAIN RESULTS: We included 16 studies in this review; of these, 15 were included in the quantitative synthesis. Two trials investigated multiple regimens, and were therefore included in more than one comparison. Only RCTs investigating dexamethasone were identified. Eight studies enrolling a total of 306 participants investigated the cumulative dosage administered; these trials were categorized according to the cumulative dosage investigated, 'low' being < 2 mg/kg, 'moderate' being between 2 and 4 mg/kg, and 'high' > 4 mg/kg; three studies contrasted a high versus a moderate cumulative dose, and five studies a moderate versus a low cumulative dexamethasone dose. We graded the certainty of the evidence low to very low because of the small number of events, and the risk of selection, attrition and reporting bias. Overall analysis of the studies investigating a higher dose versus a lower dosage regimen showed no differences in the outcomes BPD, the composite outcome death or BPD at 36 weeks' PMA, or abnormal neurodevelopmental outcome in survivors assessed. Although there was no evidence of a subgroup difference for the higher versus lower dosage regimens comparisons (Chi2 = 2.91, df = 1 (P = 0.09), I2 = 65.7%), a larger effect was seen in the subgroup analysis of moderate-dosage regimens versus high-dosage regimens for the outcome cerebral palsy in survivors. In this subgroup analysis, there was an increased risk of cerebral palsy (RR 6.85, 95% CI 1.29 to 36.36; RD 0.23, 95% CI 0.08 to 0.37; P = 0.02; I² = 0%; NNTH 5, 95% CI 2.6 to 12.7; 2 studies, 74 infants). There was evidence of subgroup differences for higher versus lower dosage regimens comparisons for the combined outcomes death or cerebral palsy, and death and abnormal neurodevelopmental outcomes (Chi2 = 4.25, df = 1 (P = 0.04), I2 = 76.5%; and Chi2 = 7.11, df = 1 (P = 0.008), I2 = 85.9%, respectively). In the subgroup analysis comparing a high dosage regimen of dexamethasone versus a moderate cumulative-dosage regimen, there was an increased risk of death or cerebral palsy (RR 3.20, 95% CI 1.35 to 7.58; RD 0.25, 95% CI 0.09 to 0.41; P = 0.002; I² = 0%; NNTH 5, 95% CI 2.4 to 13.6; 2 studies, 84 infants; moderate-certainty evidence), and death or abnormal neurodevelopmental outcome (RR 3.41, 95% CI 1.44 to 8.07; RD 0.28, 95% CI 0.11 to 0.44; P = 0.0009; I² = 0%; NNTH 4, 95% CI 2.2 to 10.4; 2 studies, 84 infants; moderate-certainty evidence). There were no differences in outcomes between a moderate- and a low-dosage regimen. Five studies enrolling 797 infants investigated early initiation of dexamethasone therapy versus a moderately early or delayed initiation, and showed no significant differences in the overall analyses for the primary outcomes. The two RCTs investigating a continuous versus a pulse dexamethasone regimen showed an increased risk of the combined outcome death or BPD when using the pulse therapy. Finally, three trials investigating a standard regimen versus a participant-individualized course of dexamethasone showed no difference in the primary outcome and long-term neurodevelopmental outcomes. We assessed the GRADE certainty of evidence for all comparisons discussed above as moderate to very low, because the validity of all comparisons is hampered by unclear or high risk of bias, small samples of randomized infants, heterogeneity in study population and design, non-protocolized use of 'rescue' corticosteroids and lack of long-term neurodevelopmental data in most studies. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: The evidence is very uncertain about the effects of different corticosteroid regimens on the outcomes mortality, pulmonary morbidity, and long term neurodevelopmental impairment. Despite the fact that the studies investigating higher versus lower dosage regimens showed that higher-dosage regimens may reduce the incidence of death or neurodevelopmental impairment, we cannot conclude what the optimal type, dosage, or timing of initiation is for the prevention of BPD in preterm infants, based on current level of evidence. Further high quality trials would be needed to establish the optimal systemic postnatal corticosteroid dosage regimen.

International Core Outcome Set for Acute Simple Appendicitis in Children: Results of a Systematic Review, Delphi Study, and Focus Croups With Young People.

OBJECTIVE: To develop an international core outcome set (COS), a minimal collection of outcomes that should be measured and reported in all future clinical trials evaluating treatments of acute simple appendicitis in children. SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA: A previous systematic review identified 115 outcomes in 60 trials and systematic reviews evaluating treatments for children with appendicitis, suggesting the need for a COS. METHODS: The development process consisted of 4 phases: (1) an updated systematic review identifying all previously reported outcomes, (2) a 2-stage international Delphi study in which parents with their children and surgeons rated these outcomes for inclusion in the COS, (3) focus groups with young people to identify missing outcomes, and (4) international expert meetings to ratify the final COS. RESULTS: The systematic review identified 129 outcomes which were mapped to 43 unique outcome terms for the Delphi survey. The first-round included 137 parents (8 countries) and 245 surgeons (10 countries), the second-round response rates were 61% and 85% respectively, with 10 outcomes emerging with consensus. After 2 young peoples' focus groups, 2 additional outcomes were added to the final COS (12): mortality, bowel obstruction, intraabdominal abscess, recurrent appendicitis, complicated appendicitis, return to baseline health, readmission, reoperation, unplanned appendectomy, adverse events related to treatment, major and minor complications. CONCLUSION: An evidence-informed COS based on international consensus, including patients and parents has been developed. This COS is recommended for all future studies evaluating treatment ofsimple appendicitis in children, to reduce heterogeneity between studies and facilitate data synthesis and evidence-based decision-making.

Late (≥ 7 days) inhaled corticosteroids to reduce bronchopulmonary dysplasia in preterm infants.

BACKGROUND: Bronchopulmonary dysplasia (BPD), defined as oxygen dependence at 36 weeks' postmenstrual age (PMA), remains an important complication of prematurity. Pulmonary inflammation plays a central role in the pathogenesis of BPD. Attenuating pulmonary inflammation with postnatal systemic corticosteroids reduces the incidence of BPD in preterm infants but may be associated with an increased risk of adverse neurodevelopmental outcomes. Local administration of corticosteroids via inhalation may be an effective and safe alternative. OBJECTIVES: To assess the benefits and harms of inhaled corticosteroids versus placebo, initiated between seven days of postnatal life and 36 weeks' postmenstrual age, to preterm infants at risk of developing bronchopulmonary dysplasia. SEARCH METHODS: We searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL, and three trials registries to August 2022. We searched conference proceedings and the reference lists of retrieved articles for additional studies. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) comparing inhaled corticosteroids to placebo, started between seven days' postnatal age (PNA) and 36 weeks' PMA, in infants at risk of BPD. We excluded trials investigating systemic corticosteroids versus inhaled corticosteroids. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We collected data on participant characteristics, trial methodology, and inhalation regimens. The primary outcomes were mortality, BPD, or both at 36 weeks' PMA. Secondary outcomes included short-term respiratory outcomes (mortality or BPD at 28 days' PNA, failure to extubate, total days of mechanical ventilation and oxygen use, and need for systemic corticosteroids) and adverse effects. We contacted the trial authors to verify the validity of extracted data and to request missing data. We analysed all data using Review Manager 5. Where possible, we reported the results of meta-analyses using risk ratios (RRs) and risk differences (RDs) for dichotomous outcomes and mean differences (MDs) for continuous outcomes, along with their 95% confidence intervals (CIs). We analysed ventilated and non-ventilated participants separately. We used the GRADE approach to assess the certainty of the evidence. MAIN RESULTS: We included seven trials involving 218 preterm infants in this review. We identified no new eligible studies in this update. The evidence is very uncertain regarding whether inhaled corticosteroids affects the combined outcome of mortality or BPD at 36 weeks' PMA (RR 1.10, 95% CI 0.74 to 1.63; RD 0.07, 95% CI -0.21 to 0.34; 1 study, 30 infants; very low-certainty) or its separate components: mortality (RR 3.00, 95% CI 0.35 to 25.78; RD 0.07, 95% CI -0.08 to 0.21; 3 studies, 61 infants; very low-certainty) and BPD (RR 1.00, 95% CI 0.59 to 1.70; RD 0.00, 95% CI -0.31 to 0.31; 1 study, 30 infants; very low-certainty) at 36 weeks' PMA. Inhaled corticosteroids may reduce the need for systemic corticosteroids, but the evidence is very uncertain (RR 0.51, 95% CI 0.26 to 1.00; RD -0.22, 95% CI -0.42 to -0.02; number needed to treat for an additional beneficial outcome 5, 95% CI 2 to 115; 4 studies, 74 infants; very low-certainty). There was a paucity of data on short-term and long-term adverse effects. Despite a low risk of bias in the individual studies, we considered the certainty of the evidence for all comparisons discussed above to be very low, because the studies had few participants, there was substantial clinical heterogeneity between studies, and only three studies reported the primary outcome of this review. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Based on the available evidence, we do not know if inhaled corticosteroids initiated from seven days of life in preterm infants at risk of developing BPD reduces mortality or BPD at 36 weeks' PMA. There is a need for larger randomised placebo-controlled trials to establish the benefits and harms of inhaled corticosteroids.

Remote ischemic conditioning in necrotizing enterocolitis: study protocol of a multi-center phase II feasibility randomized controlled trial.

PURPOSE: Remote ischemic conditioning (RIC) is a maneuver involving brief cycles of ischemia reperfusion in an individual's limb. In the early stage of experimental NEC, RIC decreased intestinal injury and prolonged survival by counteracting the derangements in intestinal microcirculation. A single-center phase I study demonstrated that the performance of RIC was safe in neonates with NEC. The aim of this phase II RCT was to evaluate the safety and feasibility of RIC, to identify challenges in recruitment, retainment, and to inform a phase III RCT to evaluate efficacy. METHODS: RIC will be performed by trained research personnel and will consist of four cycles of limb ischemia (4-min via cuff inflation) followed by reperfusion (4-min via cuff deflation), repeated on two consecutive days post randomization. The primary endpoint of this RCT is feasibility and acceptability of recruiting and randomizing neonates within 24 h from NEC diagnosis as well as masking and completing the RIC intervention. RESULTS: We created a novel international consortium for this trial and created a consensus on the diagnostic criteria for NEC and protocol for the trial. The phase II multicenter-masked feasibility RCT will be conducted at 12 centers in Canada, USA, Sweden, The Netherlands, UK, and Spain. The inclusion criteria are: gestational age < 33 weeks, weight ≥ 750 g, NEC receiving medical treatment, and diagnosis established within previous 24 h. Neonates will be randomized to RIC (intervention) or no-RIC (control) and will continue to receive standard management of NEC. We expect to recruit and randomize 40% of eligible patients in the collaborating centers (78 patients; 39/arm) in 30 months. Bayesian methods will be used to combine uninformative prior distributions with the corresponding observed proportions from this trial to determine posterior distributions for parameters of feasibility. CONCLUSIONS: The newly established NEC consortium has generated novel data on NEC diagnosis and defined the feasibility parameters for the introduction of a novel treatment in NEC. This phase II RCT will inform a future phase III RCT to evaluate the efficacy and safety of RIC in early-stage NEC.

Guidelines for Reporting Outcomes in Trial Reports: The CONSORT-Outcomes 2022 Extension.

Importance: Clinicians, patients, and policy makers rely on published results from clinical trials to help make evidence-informed decisions. To critically evaluate and use trial results, readers require complete and transparent information regarding what was planned, done, and found. Specific and harmonized guidance as to what outcome-specific information should be reported in publications of clinical trials is needed to reduce deficient reporting practices that obscure issues with outcome selection, assessment, and analysis. Objective: To develop harmonized, evidence- and consensus-based standards for reporting outcomes in clinical trial reports through integration with the Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials (CONSORT) 2010 statement. Evidence Review: Using the Enhancing the Quality and Transparency of Health Research (EQUATOR) methodological framework, the CONSORT-Outcomes 2022 extension of the CONSORT 2010 statement was developed by (1) generation and evaluation of candidate outcome reporting items via consultation with experts and a scoping review of existing guidance for reporting trial outcomes (published within the 10 years prior to March 19, 2018) identified through expert solicitation, electronic database searches of MEDLINE and the Cochrane Methodology Register, gray literature searches, and reference list searches; (2) a 3-round international Delphi voting process (November 2018-February 2019) completed by 124 panelists from 22 countries to rate and identify additional items; and (3) an in-person consensus meeting (April 9-10, 2019) attended by 25 panelists to identify essential items for the reporting of outcomes in clinical trial reports. Findings: The scoping review and consultation with experts identified 128 recommendations relevant to reporting outcomes in trial reports, the majority (83%) of which were not included in the CONSORT 2010 statement. All recommendations were consolidated into 64 items for Delphi voting; after the Delphi survey process, 30 items met criteria for further evaluation at the consensus meeting and possible inclusion in the CONSORT-Outcomes 2022 extension. The discussions during and after the consensus meeting yielded 17 items that elaborate on the CONSORT 2010 statement checklist items and are related to completely defining and justifying the trial outcomes, including how and when they were assessed (CONSORT 2010 statement checklist item 6a), defining and justifying the target difference between treatment groups during sample size calculations (CONSORT 2010 statement checklist item 7a), describing the statistical methods used to compare groups for the primary and secondary outcomes (CONSORT 2010 statement checklist item 12a), and describing the prespecified analyses and any outcome analyses not prespecified (CONSORT 2010 statement checklist item 18). Conclusions and Relevance: This CONSORT-Outcomes 2022 extension of the CONSORT 2010 statement provides 17 outcome-specific items that should be addressed in all published clinical trial reports and may help increase trial utility, replicability, and transparency and may minimize the risk of selective nonreporting of trial results.

Guidelines for Reporting Outcomes in Trial Protocols: The SPIRIT-Outcomes 2022 Extension.

Importance: Complete information in a trial protocol regarding study outcomes is crucial for obtaining regulatory approvals, ensuring standardized trial conduct, reducing research waste, and providing transparency of methods to facilitate trial replication, critical appraisal, accurate reporting and interpretation of trial results, and knowledge synthesis. However, recommendations on what outcome-specific information should be included are diverse and inconsistent. To improve reporting practices promoting transparent and reproducible outcome selection, assessment, and analysis, a need for specific and harmonized guidance as to what outcome-specific information should be addressed in clinical trial protocols exists. Objective: To develop harmonized, evidence- and consensus-based standards for describing outcomes in clinical trial protocols through integration with the Standard Protocol Items: Recommendations for Interventional Trials (SPIRIT) 2013 statement. Evidence Review: Using the Enhancing the Quality and Transparency of Health Research (EQUATOR) methodological framework, the SPIRIT-Outcomes 2022 extension of the SPIRIT 2013 statement was developed by (1) generation and evaluation of candidate outcome reporting items via consultation with experts and a scoping review of existing guidance for reporting trial outcomes (published within the 10 years prior to March 19, 2018) identified through expert solicitation, electronic database searches of MEDLINE and the Cochrane Methodology Register, gray literature searches, and reference list searches; (2) a 3-round international Delphi voting process (November 2018-February 2019) completed by 124 panelists from 22 countries to rate and identify additional items; and (3) an in-person consensus meeting (April 9-10, 2019) attended by 25 panelists to identify essential items for outcome-specific reporting to be addressed in clinical trial protocols. Findings: The scoping review and consultation with experts identified 108 recommendations relevant to outcome-specific reporting to be addressed in trial protocols, the majority (72%) of which were not included in the SPIRIT 2013 statement. All recommendations were consolidated into 56 items for Delphi voting; after the Delphi survey process, 19 items met criteria for further evaluation at the consensus meeting and possible inclusion in the SPIRIT-Outcomes 2022 extension. The discussions during and after the consensus meeting yielded 9 items that elaborate on the SPIRIT 2013 statement checklist items and are related to completely defining and justifying the choice of primary, secondary, and other outcomes (SPIRIT 2013 statement checklist item 12) prospectively in the trial protocol, defining and justifying the target difference between treatment groups for the primary outcome used in the sample size calculations (SPIRIT 2013 statement checklist item 14), describing the responsiveness of the study instruments used to assess the outcome and providing details on the outcome assessors (SPIRIT 2013 statement checklist item 18a), and describing any planned methods to account for multiplicity relating to the analyses or interpretation of the results (SPIRIT 2013 statement checklist item 20a). Conclusions and Relevance: This SPIRIT-Outcomes 2022 extension of the SPIRIT 2013 statement provides 9 outcome-specific items that should be addressed in all trial protocols and may help increase trial utility, replicability, and transparency and may minimize the risk of selective nonreporting of trial results.

Forks in the road: Definitions of response, remission, recovery, and other dichotomized outcomes in randomized controlled trials for adolescent depression. A scoping review.

BACKGROUND: Definitions of dichotomous outcome terms, such as "response," "remission," and "recovery" are central to the design, interpretation, and clinical application of randomized controlled trials of adolescent depression interventions. Accordingly, this scoping review was conducted to document how these terms have been defined and justified in clinical trials. METHOD: Bibliographic databases MEDLINE, Embase, APA PsycInfo, and CINAHL were searched from inception to February 2020 for randomized controlled trials evaluating treatments for adolescent depression. Ninety-eight trials were included for data extraction and analysis. RESULTS: Assessment of outcome measurement instruments, metric strategies, methods of aggregation, and measurement timing, yielded 53 unique outcome definitions of "response" across 45 trials that assessed response, 47 unique definitions of "remission" in 29 trials that assessed remission, and 19 unique definitions of "recovery" across 11 trials that assessed recovery. A minority of trials (N = 35) provided a rationale for dichotomous outcomes definitions, often by citing other studies that used a similar definition (N = 11). No rationale included input from youth or families with lived experience. CONCLUSION: Our review revealed that definitions of "response," "remission," "recovery," and related terms are highly variable, lack clear rationales, and are not informed by key stakeholder input. These limitations impair pooling of trial results and the incorporation of trial findings into pragmatic treatment decisions in clinical practice. Systematic approaches to establishing outcome definitions are needed to enhance the impact of trials examining adolescent depression treatment.

A Bayesian response-adaptive dose-finding and comparative effectiveness trial.

BACKGROUND/AIMS: Combinations of treatments that have already received regulatory approval can offer additional benefit over Each of the treatments individually. However, trials of these combinations are lower priority than those that develop novel therapies, which can restrict funding, timelines and patient availability. This article develops a novel trial design to facilitate the evaluation of New combination therapies. This trial design combines elements of phase II and phase III trials to reduce the burden of evaluating combination therapies, while also maintaining a feasible sample size. This design was developed for a randomised trial that compares the properties of three combination doses of ketamine and dexmedetomidine, given intranasally, to ketamine delivered intravenously for children undergoing a closed reduction for a fracture or dislocation. METHODS: This trial design uses response-adaptive randomisation to evaluate different dose combinations and increase the information collected for successful novel drug combinations. The design then uses Bayesian dose-response modelling to undertake a comparative effectiveness analysis for the most successful dose combination against a relevant comparator. We used simulation methods determine the thresholds for adapting the trial and making conclusions. We also used simulations to evaluate the probability of selecting the dose combination with the highest true effectiveness the operating characteristics of the design and its Bayesian predictive power. RESULTS: With 410 participants, five interim updates of the randomisation ratio and a probability of effectiveness of 0.93, 0.88 and 0.83 for the three dose combinations, we have an 83% chance of randomising the largest number of patients to the drug with the highest probability of effectiveness. Based on this adaptive randomisation procedure, the comparative effectiveness analysis has a type I error of less than 5% and a 93% chance of correcting concluding non-inferiority, when the probability of effectiveness for the optimal combination therapy is 0.9. In this case, the trial has a greater than 77% chance of meeting its dual aims of dose-finding and comparative effectiveness. Finally, the Bayesian predictive power of the trial is over 90%. CONCLUSIONS: By simultaneously determining the optimal dose and collecting data on the relative effectiveness of an intervention, we can minimise administrative burden and recruitment time for a trial. This will minimise the time required to get effective, safe combination therapies to patients quickly. The proposed trial has high potential to meet the dual study objectives within a feasible overall sample size.

Prophylactic drug management for febrile seizures in children.

BACKGROUND: Febrile seizures occurring in a child older than one month during an episode of fever affect 2-4% of children in Great Britain and the United States and recur in 30%. Rapid-acting antiepileptics and antipyretics given during subsequent fever episodes have been used to avoid the adverse effects of continuous antiepileptic drugs. This is an updated version of a Cochrane Review previously published in 2017. OBJECTIVES: To evaluate primarily the effectiveness and safety of antiepileptic and antipyretic drugs used prophylactically to treat children with febrile seizures; and also to evaluate any other drug intervention where there is a sound biological rationale for its use. SEARCH METHODS: For the latest update we searched the following databases on 3 February 2020: Cochrane Register of Studies (CRS Web), MEDLINE (Ovid, 1946 to 31 January 2020). CRS Web includes randomised or quasi-randomised controlled trials from PubMed, Embase, ClinicalTrials.gov, the World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP), the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), and the specialised registers of Cochrane Review Groups including the Cochrane Epilepsy Group. We imposed no language restrictions and contacted researchers to identify continuing or unpublished studies. SELECTION CRITERIA: Trials using randomised or quasi-randomised participant allocation that compared the use of antiepileptics, antipyretics or recognised Central Nervous System active agents with each other, placebo, or no treatment. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: For the original review, two review authors independently applied predefined criteria to select trials for inclusion and extracted the predefined relevant data, recording methods for randomisation, blinding, and exclusions. For the 2016 update, a third review author checked all original inclusions, data analyses, and updated the search. For the 2020 update, one review author updated the search and performed the data analysis following a peer-review process with the original review authors. We assessed seizure recurrence at 6, 12, 18, 24, 36, 48 months, and where data were available at age 5 to 6 years along with recorded adverse effects. We evaluated the presence of publication bias using funnel plots. MAIN RESULTS: We included 42 articles describing 32 randomised trials, with 4431 randomised participants used in the analysis of this review. We analysed 15 interventions of continuous or intermittent prophylaxis and their control treatments. Methodological quality was moderate to poor in most studies. We found no significant benefit for intermittent phenobarbital, phenytoin, valproate, pyridoxine, ibuprofen, or zinc sulfate versus placebo or no treatment; nor for diclofenac versus placebo followed by ibuprofen, paracetamol, or placebo; nor for continuous phenobarbital versus diazepam, intermittent rectal diazepam versus intermittent valproate, or oral diazepam versus clobazam. There was a significant reduction of recurrent febrile seizures with intermittent diazepam versus placebo or no treatment at six months (risk ratio (RR) 0.64, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.48 to 0.85; 6 studies, 1151 participants; moderate-certainty evidence), 12 months (RR 0.69, 95% CI 0.56 to 0.84; 8 studies, 1416 participants; moderate-certainty evidence), 18 months (RR 0.37, 95% CI 0.23 to 0.60; 1 study, 289 participants; low-certainty evidence), 24 months (RR 0.73, 95% CI 0.56 to 0.95; 4 studies, 739 participants; high-certainty evidence), 36 months (RR 0.58, 95% CI 0.40 to 0.85; 1 study, 139 participants; low-certainty evidence), 48 months (RR 0.36, 95% CI 0.15 to 0.89; 1 study, 110 participants; moderate-certainty evidence), with no benefit at 60 to 72 months (RR 0.08, 95% CI 0.00 to 1.31; 1 study, 60 participants; very low-certainty evidence). Phenobarbital versus placebo or no treatment reduced seizures at six months (RR 0.59, 95% CI 0.42 to 0.83; 6 studies, 833 participants; moderate-certainty evidence), 12 months (RR 0.54, 95% CI 0.42 to 0.70; 7 studies, 807 participants; low-certainty evidence), and 24 months (RR 0.69, 95% CI 0.53 to 0.89; 3 studies, 533 participants; moderate-certainty evidence), but not at 18 months (RR 0.77, 95% CI 0.56 to 1.05; 2 studies, 264 participants) or 60 to 72 months follow-up (RR 1.50, 95% CI 0.61 to 3.69; 1 study, 60 participants; very low-certainty evidence). Intermittent clobazam compared to placebo at six months resulted in a RR of 0.36 (95% CI 0.20 to 0.64; 1 study, 60 participants; low-certainty evidence), an effect found against an extremely high (83.3%) recurrence rate in the controls, a result that needs replication. When compared to intermittent diazepam, intermittent oral melatonin did not significantly reduce seizures at six months (RR 0.45, 95% CI 0.18 to 1.15; 1 study, 60 participants; very-low certainty evidence). When compared to placebo, intermittent oral levetiracetam significantly reduced recurrent seizures at 12 months (RR 0.27, 95% CI 0.15 to 0.52; 1 study, 115 participants; very low-certainty evidence). The recording of adverse effects was variable. Two studies reported lower comprehension scores in phenobarbital-treated children. Adverse effects were recorded in up to 30% of children in the phenobarbital-treated groups and 36% in benzodiazepine-treated groups. We found evidence of publication bias in the meta-analyses of comparisons for phenobarbital versus placebo (seven studies) at 12 months but not at six months (six studies); and valproate versus placebo (four studies) at 12 months. There were too few studies to identify publication bias for the other comparisons. The methodological quality of most of the included studies was low or very low. Methods of randomisation and allocation concealment often did not meet current standards, and 'treatment versus no treatment' was more commonly seen than 'treatment versus placebo', leading to obvious risks of bias.  AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: We found reduced recurrence rates for intermittent diazepam and continuous phenobarbital, with adverse effects in up to 30% of children. The apparent benefit for clobazam treatment in one trial needs to be replicated. Levetiracetam also shows benefit with a good safety profile; however, further study is required. Given the benign nature of recurrent febrile seizures, and the high prevalence of adverse effects of these drugs, parents and families should be supported with adequate contact details of medical services and information on recurrence, first aid management, and, most importantly, the benign nature of the phenomenon.

Primary outcome reporting in adolescent depression clinical trials needs standardization.

BACKGROUND: Evidence-based health care is informed by results of randomized clinical trials (RCTs) and their syntheses in meta-analyses. When the trial outcomes measured are not clearly described in trial publications, knowledge synthesis, translation, and decision-making may be impeded. While heterogeneity in outcomes measured in adolescent major depressive disorder (MDD) RCTs has been described, the comprehensiveness of outcome reporting is unknown. This study aimed to assess the reporting of primary outcomes in RCTs evaluating treatments for adolescent MDD. METHODS: RCTs evaluating treatment interventions in adolescents with a diagnosis of MDD published between 2008 and 2017 specifying a single primary outcome were eligible for outcome reporting assessment. Outcome reporting assessment was done independently in duplicate using a comprehensive checklist of 58 reporting items. Primary outcome information provided in each RCT publication was scored as "fully reported", "partially reported", or "not reported" for each checklist item, as applicable. RESULTS: Eighteen of 42 identified articles were found to have a discernable single primary outcome and were included for outcome reporting assessment. Most trials (72%) did not fully report on over half of the 58 checklist items. Items describing masking of outcome assessors, timing and frequency of outcome assessment, and outcome analyses were fully reported in over 70% of trials. Items less frequently reported included outcome measurement instrument properties (ranging from 6 to 17%), justification of timing and frequency of outcome assessment (6%), and justification of criteria used for clinically significant differences (17%). The overall comprehensiveness of reporting appeared stable over time. CONCLUSIONS: Heterogeneous reporting exists in published adolescent MDD RCTs, with frequent omissions of key details about their primary outcomes. These omissions may impair interpretability, replicability, and synthesis of RCTs that inform clinical guidelines and decision-making in this field. Consensus on the minimal criteria for outcome reporting in adolescent MDD RCTs is needed.