IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/plo/pone00/0006276.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Outcomes in Clinical Trials of Inhaled Corticosteroids for Children with Asthma Are Narrowly Focussed on Short Term Disease Activity

Author

Listed:
  • Ian P Sinha
  • Paula R Williamson
  • Rosalind L Smyth

Abstract

Background: Little work has been done to determine which outcomes should be measured in randomised controlled trials (RCTs) in children with asthma. Drug regulatory authorities require that short term disease activity is measured, but other outcome domains are not mandatory for licensing and marketing purposes. We aimed to identify whether any domains were underrepresented in RCTs of regular therapies for children with asthma over a 20 year period, and to examine what consistency there was between RCTs in the outcomes used to assess the domains. Methodology/Principal Findings: By searching the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials in January 2008, we identified all parallel-group RCTs, published between January 1988 and December 2007, which assessed inhaled corticosteroids (ICS) as regular therapy for children with asthma. We evaluated how frequently RCTs measured the following pre-defined domains: disease activity; disease damage; functional status; quality of life; health resource utilisation; and adverse effects of therapy. Our initial search identified 1668 abstracts, of which 412 were retrieved in full. 159 RCTs, of which 115 involved only children and 44 involved children and adults, were included in the review. Disease activity was measured in 157 RCTs, adverse effects of ICS in 135, functional status in 25, quality of life in 21, and health resource utilisation in 17. No RCT measured long term disease damage, although two used FEV1 as a measure of ‘lung growth’. RCTs were inconsistent in the outcomes used to measure the domains. Conclusions: Short term disease activity is the most frequently measured outcome domain in RCTs in children with asthma. Effects of regular therapies on functional status, quality of life, and long term consequences of asthma are infrequently assessed. A core set of outcomes, developed using consensus techniques, would standardise the measurement of appropriate outcomes in these RCTs. Involving patients would identify outcomes which are most relevant from their perspective.

Suggested Citation

  • Ian P Sinha & Paula R Williamson & Rosalind L Smyth, 2009. "Outcomes in Clinical Trials of Inhaled Corticosteroids for Children with Asthma Are Narrowly Focussed on Short Term Disease Activity," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 4(7), pages 1-8, July.
    • Handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0006276
    DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0006276
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0006276
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article/file?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0006276&type=printable
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1371/journal.pone.0006276?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Kerry Dwan & Douglas G Altman & Juan A Arnaiz & Jill Bloom & An-Wen Chan & Eugenia Cronin & Evelyne Decullier & Philippa J Easterbrook & Erik Von Elm & Carrol Gamble & Davina Ghersi & John P A Ioannid, 2008. "Systematic Review of the Empirical Evidence of Study Publication Bias and Outcome Reporting Bias," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 3(8), pages 1-31, August.
    2. Ian Sinha & Leanne Jones & Rosalind L Smyth & Paula R Williamson, 2008. "A Systematic Review of Studies That Aim to Determine Which Outcomes to Measure in Clinical Trials in Children," PLOS Medicine, Public Library of Science, vol. 5(4), pages 1-10, April.
    3. Mike Clarke, 2008. "Standardising Outcomes in Paediatric Clinical Trials," PLOS Medicine, Public Library of Science, vol. 5(4), pages 1-2, April.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Ian P Sinha & Rosalind L Smyth & Paula R Williamson, 2011. "Using the Delphi Technique to Determine Which Outcomes to Measure in Clinical Trials: Recommendations for the Future Based on a Systematic Review of Existing Studies," PLOS Medicine, Public Library of Science, vol. 8(1), pages 1-5, January.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Ian P Sinha & Rosalind L Smyth & Paula R Williamson, 2011. "Using the Delphi Technique to Determine Which Outcomes to Measure in Clinical Trials: Recommendations for the Future Based on a Systematic Review of Existing Studies," PLOS Medicine, Public Library of Science, vol. 8(1), pages 1-5, January.
    2. Elizabeth Gargon & Binu Gurung & Nancy Medley & Doug G Altman & Jane M Blazeby & Mike Clarke & Paula R Williamson, 2014. "Choosing Important Health Outcomes for Comparative Effectiveness Research: A Systematic Review," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 9(6), pages 1-12, June.
    3. Schaub, Jason & Stander, Willem J. & Montgomery, Paul, 2022. "LGBTQ+ Young People’s Health and Well-being Experiences in Out-of-home Social Care: A scoping review," Children and Youth Services Review, Elsevier, vol. 143(C).
    4. Paolo Crosetto & Antonio Filippin & Janna Heider, 2015. "A Study of Outcome Reporting Bias Using Gender Differences in Risk Attitudes," CESifo Economic Studies, CESifo Group, vol. 61(1), pages 239-262.
    5. Nikolaos Pandis & Padhraig S Fleming & Helen Worthington & Kerry Dwan & Georgia Salanti, 2015. "Discrepancies in Outcome Reporting Exist Between Protocols and Published Oral Health Cochrane Systematic Reviews," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 10(9), pages 1-10, September.
    6. Joseph S Ross & Gregory K Mulvey & Elizabeth M Hines & Steven E Nissen & Harlan M Krumholz, 2009. "Trial Publication after Registration in ClinicalTrials.Gov: A Cross-Sectional Analysis," PLOS Medicine, Public Library of Science, vol. 6(9), pages 1-9, September.
    7. Sarah Wigham & Helen McConachie, 2014. "Systematic Review of the Properties of Tools Used to Measure Outcomes in Anxiety Intervention Studies for Children with Autism Spectrum Disorders," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 9(1), pages 1-17, January.
    8. Mike Clarke, 2008. "Standardising Outcomes in Paediatric Clinical Trials," PLOS Medicine, Public Library of Science, vol. 5(4), pages 1-2, April.
    9. Wynanda A van Enst & Rob J P M Scholten & Lotty Hooft, 2012. "Identification of Additional Trials in Prospective Trial Registers for Cochrane Systematic Reviews," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 7(8), pages 1-5, August.
    10. Ewelina Rogozińska & Elizabeth Gargon & Rocío Olmedo-Requena & Amani Asour & Natalie A M Cooper & Claire L Vale & Janneke van’t Hooft, 2020. "Methods used to assess outcome consistency in clinical studies: A literature-based evaluation," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 15(7), pages 1-12, July.
    11. Jamie J Kirkham & Doug G Altman & Paula R Williamson, 2010. "Bias Due to Changes in Specified Outcomes during the Systematic Review Process," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 5(3), pages 1-5, March.
    12. Sarah L Gorst & Elizabeth Gargon & Mike Clarke & Jane M Blazeby & Douglas G Altman & Paula R Williamson, 2016. "Choosing Important Health Outcomes for Comparative Effectiveness Research: An Updated Review and User Survey," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 11(1), pages 1-12, January.
    13. Daniele Fanelli, 2010. "Do Pressures to Publish Increase Scientists' Bias? An Empirical Support from US States Data," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 5(4), pages 1-7, April.
    14. Dongying Li & Tess Menotti & Yizhen Ding & Nancy M. Wells, 2021. "Life Course Nature Exposure and Mental Health Outcomes: A Systematic Review and Future Directions," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 18(10), pages 1-28, May.
    15. Amin Haghnejad & Mahboobeh Farahati, 2024. "An overview of meta-analytic methods for economic research," Papers 2412.10608, arXiv.org, revised Mar 2025.
    16. Thomas Pfeiffer & Lars Bertram & John P A Ioannidis, 2011. "Quantifying Selective Reporting and the Proteus Phenomenon for Multiple Datasets with Similar Bias," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 6(3), pages 1-7, March.
    17. Ana Virgolino & Osvaldo Santos & Joana Costa & Mónica Fialho & Ivo Iavicoli & Tiina Santonen & Hanna Tolonen & Evangelia Samoli & Klea Katsouyanni & Georgios Baltatzis & Flavia Ruggieri & Annalisa Abb, 2021. "Challenges to Evidence Synthesis and Identification of Data Gaps in Human Biomonitoring," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 18(6), pages 1-11, March.
    18. Michal Kicinski, 2013. "Publication Bias in Recent Meta-Analyses," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 8(11), pages 1-1, November.
    19. Carl Berning & Bernd Weiß, 2016. "Publication bias in the German social sciences: an application of the caliper test to three top-tier German social science journals," Quality & Quantity: International Journal of Methodology, Springer, vol. 50(2), pages 901-917, March.
    20. Erick H Turner & Andrea Cipriani & Toshi A Furukawa & Georgia Salanti & Ymkje Anna de Vries, 2022. "Selective publication of antidepressant trials and its influence on apparent efficacy: Updated comparisons and meta-analyses of newer versus older trials," PLOS Medicine, Public Library of Science, vol. 19(1), pages 1-21, January.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0006276. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: plosone (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/ .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.