Comparison of tumor-agnostic and tumor-specific clinical oncology trial designs: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

Aim: To examine whether tumor-specific and tumor-agnostic oncology trials produce comparable estimates of objective response rate (ORR) in BRAF-altered cancers. Materials & methods: Electronic database searches were performed to identify phase I-III clinical trials testing tyrosine kinase inhibitors from 2000 to 2021. A random-effects model was used to pool ORRs. A total of 22 cohorts from five tumor-agnostic trials and 41 cohorts from 27 tumor-specific trials had published ORRs. Results: There was no significant difference between pooled ORRs from either trial design for multitumor analyses (37 vs 50%; p = 0.05); thyroid cancer (57 vs 33%; p = 0.10); non-small-cell lung cancer (39 vs 53%; p = 0.18); or melanoma (55 vs 51%; p = 0.58). Conclusion: For BRAF-altered advanced cancers, tumor-agnostic trials do not yield substantially different results from tumor-specific trials.

Two types of studies were sought, including studies that measured health outcomes in patients who were selected to receive medicine based on the location of their cancer (tumor), called tumor-specific studies; and studies that measured health outcomes in patients who were selected to receive cancer medicine regardless of the location of their cancer (tumor), called tumor-agnostic studies. From the studies found, only the studies that tested a specific type of cancer medicine (called tyrosine kinase inhibitors) on cancers with a specific genetic alteration (called BRAF-altered cancers) were identified. These studies were included in the analysis. The goal of the analysis was to determine if the two types of studies gave similar estimates of response rate, which is a type of trial outcome that measures whether the cancer shrinks or disappears. To do this, the results from the tumor-specific studies were combined with the results of the tumor-agnostic studies. No meaningful differences in the results from the tumor-specific studies compared with the tumor-agnostic studies were found. This suggests that tumor-specific studies do not yield very different results from tumor-agnostic studies.

Advancing drug development in pediatric oncology, a focus on cancer biology and targeted therapies: iMATRIX platform.

With the development of novel treatment therapies as well as evolving and innovative approaches to conduct clinical trials, the landscape of pediatric oncology drug development has dramatically changed in recent years. Despite this change, approvals for new drugs and labeling updates to ensure availability of proper treatment for pediatric patients with cancer remain slow. The context of drug development in pediatric tumors has also changed with regulatory initiatives in the US and Europe, creating a great need for faster development of novel drugs. Today, conventional study designs have been replaced or complemented by novel clinical trial designs, such as master protocols and platform trials, to optimize cancer drug development and enable faster regulatory approval. The iMATRIX platform is a mechanism-of-action (MOA)-based phase 1/2 trial framework for concurrently studying multiple molecules across a range of relevant pediatric tumor types, taking into account the biology of each pediatric tumor type. Six studies have been conducted, ongoing, or planned on the iMATRIX platform - investigating atezolizumab, cobimetinib, entrectinib, idasanutlin, alectinib, and glofitamab. A brief overview of study designs and characteristics are shared in this article, along with learnings from them.

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.

Entrectinib in children and young adults with solid or primary CNS tumors harboring NTRK, ROS1, or ALK aberrations (STARTRK-NG).

BACKGROUND: Entrectinib is a TRKA/B/C, ROS1, ALK tyrosine kinase inhibitor approved for the treatment of adults and children aged ≥12 years with NTRK fusion-positive solid tumors and adults with ROS1 fusion-positive non-small-cell lung cancer. We report an analysis of the STARTRK-NG trial, investigating the recommended phase 2 dose (RP2D) and activity of entrectinib in pediatric patients with solid tumors including primary central nervous system tumors. METHODS: STARTRK-NG (NCT02650401) is a phase 1/2 trial. Phase 1, dose-escalation of oral, once-daily entrectinib, enrolled patients aged <22 years with solid tumors with/without target NTRK1/2/3, ROS1, or ALK fusions. Phase 2, basket trial at the RP2D, enrolled patients with intracranial or extracranial solid tumors harboring target fusions or neuroblastoma. Primary endpoints: phase 1, RP2D based on toxicity; phase 2, objective response rate (ORR) in patients harboring target fusions. Safety-evaluable patients: ≥1 dose of entrectinib; response-evaluable patients: measurable/evaluable baseline disease and ≥1 dose at RP2D. RESULTS: At data cutoff, 43 patients, median age of 7 years, were response-evaluable. In phase 1, 4 patients experienced dose-limiting toxicities. The most common treatment-related adverse event was weight gain (48.8%). Nine patients experienced bone fractures (20.9%). In patients with fusion-positive tumors, ORR was 57.7% (95% CI 36.9-76.7), median duration of response was not reached, and median (interquartile range) duration of treatment was 10.6 months (4.2-18.4). CONCLUSIONS: Entrectinib resulted in rapid and durable responses in pediatric patients with solid tumors harboring NTRK1/2/3 or ROS1 fusions.

Core outcome set for children with neurological impairment and tube feeding.

AIM: To develop a core outcome set (COS) for evaluating gastrostomy/gastrojejunostomy tube impact in children with neurological impairment. METHOD: Healthcare providers/researchers and caregivers rated the importance of candidate outcomes on a 5-point Likert scale. Outcomes rated 'somewhat important' or 'very important' by most (≥85%) respondents were voted on during a consensus meeting. Outcomes that reached consensus for inclusion were ratified and assigned to Outcome Measures in Rheumatology filter core areas. The COS was validated in a separate group of caregivers. RESULTS: Twelve outcomes were selected from 120 candidate outcomes to form the COS. These included five 'Life Impact' outcomes, three 'Pathophysiological Manifestations' outcomes, two 'Resource Use' outcomes, one 'Growth and Development' outcome, and one 'Death' outcome. INTERPRETATION: We developed an evidence-informed and consensus-based COS for use in studies of gastrostomy/gastrojejunostomy tube feeding in children with neurological impairment. Implementation of this COS will help reduce heterogeneity between studies and facilitate evidence-based decision-making. WHAT THE PAPER ADDS: Caregivers, healthcare providers, and researchers ranked the importance of 120 outcomes. Twelve core outcomes were identified as essential to measure in future clinical research studies.

CONJUNTO BÁSICO DE RESULTADOS PARA NIÑOS CON DETERIORO NEUROLÓGICO Y SONDA DE ALIMENTACIÓN: OBJETIVO: Desarrollar un conjunto básico de resultados (COS) para evaluar el impacto de la sonda de gastrostomía/gastro-yeyunostomía en niños con discapacidad neurológica. MÉTODO: Los proveedores/investigadores y cuidadores de salud calificaron la importancia de los resultados de los candidatos en una escala Likert de 5 puntos. Los resultados fueron calificados como "algo importantes" o "muy importantes" por la mayoría de los encuestados (85%) quienes votaron durante una reunión de consenso. Los resultados que llegaron a un consenso para la inclusión fueron ratificados y asignados a las medidas de resultado en las áreas centrales del filtro de reumatología. El COS fue validado en un grupo separado de cuidadores. RESULTADOS: Doce resultados fueron seleccionados de 120 candidatos para formar el COS. Estos incluyeron cinco resultados de "Impacto en la vida", tres resultados de "Manifestaciones patológicas", dos resultados de "uso de recursos", un resultado de "Crecimiento y desarrollo" y un resultado de "Muerte". INTERPRETACIÓN: Desarrollamos un COS basado en evidencia y basado en el consenso para su uso en estudios de sonda de alimentación por gastrostomía/gastro yeyunostomía en niños con discapacidad neurológica. La implementación de este COS ayudará a reducir la heterogeneidad entre los estudios y facilitará la toma de decisiones basadas en la evidencia.

ITENS PRINCIPAIS PARA CRIANÇAS COM DEFICIÊNCIA NEUROLÓGICA E TUBO DE ALIMENTAÇÃO: OBJETIVO: Desenvolver um conjunto de itens principais (CIP) para avaliar o impacto do tubo de gastrostomia/gastrojejunostomia em crianças com deficiência neurológica. MÉTODO: Pesquisadores, profissionais da saúde, e cuidadores pontuaram a importância dos desfechos candidatos em uma escala Likert de 5 pontos. Os desfechos pontuados como "algo importante"ou "muito importante" pela maioria '(≥85%) dos respondentes foram votados durante um encontro para consenso. Os desfechos que obtiveram consenso foram ratificados e incluídos no filtro de itens principais das Medidas de Resultados em Reumatologia. O CIP foi validado em um grupo separado de cuidadores. RESULTADOS: Doze resultados foram selecionados a partir de 120 resultados candidatos para formar o CIP. Estes incluíram cinco resultados de "Impacto na vida", três de Manifestações Patofisiológicas, um de "Crescimento e Desenvolvimento", e um sobre "Morte". INTERPRETAÇÃO: Desenvolvemos um CIP baseado em evidência e baseado em consenso para uso em estudos de alimentação por tubo de gastrostomia/gastrojejunostomia em crianças com deficiência neurológica. A implementation deste CIP irá ajudar a reduzir a heterogeneidade entre estudos e facilitar a tomada de decisões baseada em evidências.

Atezolizumab for children and young adults with previously treated solid tumours, non-Hodgkin lymphoma, and Hodgkin lymphoma (iMATRIX): a multicentre phase 1-2 study.

BACKGROUND: Atezolizumab is an inhibitor of PD-L1, which can lead to enhanced anticancer T-cell activity. We aimed to evaluate the safety, pharmacokinetics, and activity of atezolizumab in children and young adults with refractory or relapsed solid tumours, with known or expected PD-L1 expression. METHODS: iMATRIX was a multicentre, open-label, phase 1-2 trial of patients (aged <30 years) with solid tumours or lymphomas recruited from 28 hospitals in ten countries (USA, France, Italy, UK, Spain, the Netherlands, Denmark, Israel, Switzerland, and Germany). Eligible patients younger than 18 years received 15 mg/kg atezolizumab (maximum 1200 mg); patients aged 18-29 years received the adult dose (1200 mg) until disease progression or loss of clinical benefit. Co-primary endpoints were safety (assessed by incidence of adverse events) and pharmacokinetics (assessed by serum atezolizumab concentrations). Secondary endpoints included the proportion of patients achieving an objective response. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT02541604. FINDINGS: Between Nov 5, 2015, and April 2, 2018, we screened 115 patients, 25 of whom did not meet the inclusion criteria. 90 patients, with a median age of 14 years (IQR 10-17), were enrolled. At the data cutoff (April 2, 2018), two patients remained on study treatment. 87 (97%) of 90 patients received at least one dose of atezolizumab at 15 mg/kg or 1200 mg and were evaluable for safety. Three patients were not treated owing to either poor clinical condition or withdrawal of consent. In the safety-evaluable population (n=87), the most common adverse events were pyrexia (36 [41%] patients) and fatigue (31 [36%]). The most common grade 3-4 adverse event was anaemia (19 [22%] patients). The most commonly reported serious adverse events were in the categories of infections and infestations; pyrexia was the only serious adverse event reported in more than two patients. 57 (66%) patients had at least one treatment-related adverse event (grade 1-4); fatigue was the most common treatment-related adverse event (17 patients [20%]). There were no fatal adverse events. Mean serum concentrations of atezolizumab were overlapping and comparable between children receiving 15 mg/kg and young adults receiving 1200 mg of atezolizumab every 3 weeks. Serum concentrations of atezolizumab were above the target exposure level in all patients. At 6 months, four patients (5%) achieved an objective response (all partial responses). INTERPRETATION: Although response to atezolizumab was restricted, atezolizumab was well tolerated with generally comparable exposure across populations. Our findings might help to define future development strategies for immune checkpoint inhibitors either by focusing research to specific disease subpopulations that exhibit greater benefit from immune checkpoint inhibitors, or by providing the means to identify therapeutic combination partners that augment T-cell infiltration and proliferation in so-called immune cold tumour microenvironments. FUNDING: F Hoffmann-La Roche.

Breast cancer risk and breast screening for trans people: an integration of 3 systematic reviews.

BACKGROUND: Trans people face uncertain risk for breast cancer and barriers to accessing breast screening. Our objectives were to identify and synthesize primary research evidence on the effect of cross-sex hormones (CSHs) on breast cancer risk, prognosis and mortality among trans people, the benefits and harms of breast screening in this population, and existing clinical practice recommendations on breast screening for trans people. METHODS: We conducted 2 systematic reviews of primary research, 1 on the effect of CSHs on breast cancer risk, prognosis and mortality, and the other on the benefits and harms of breast screening, and a third systematic review of guidelines on existing screening recommendations for trans people. We searched PubMed, MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL, the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews and grey literature sources for primary research, guidelines and position statements published in English between 1997 and 2017. Citations were screened by 2 independent reviewers. One reviewer extracted data and assessed methodological quality of included articles; a second reviewer verified these in full. The results were synthesized narratively. RESULTS: Four observational studies, 6 guidelines and 5 position statements were included. Observational evidence of very low certainty did not show an effect of CSHs on breast cancer risk in trans men or trans women. Among trans women, painfulness of mammography and ultrasonography was low. There was no evidence on the effect of CSHs on breast cancer prognosis and mortality, or on benefits and other harms of screening. Existing clinical practice documents recommended screening for distinct trans subpopulations; however, recommendations varied. INTERPRETATION: The limited evidence does not show an effect of CSHs on breast cancer risk. Although there is insufficient evidence to determine the potential benefits and harms of breast screening, existing clinical practice documents generally recommend screening for trans people; further large-scale prospective comparative research is needed.

Improving outcome reporting in clinical trial reports and protocols: study protocol for the Instrument for reporting Planned Endpoints in Clinical Trials (InsPECT).

BACKGROUND: Inadequate and poor quality outcome reporting in clinical trials is a well-documented problem that impedes the ability of researchers to evaluate, replicate, synthesize, and build upon study findings and impacts evidence-based decision-making by patients, clinicians, and policy-makers. To facilitate harmonized and transparent reporting of outcomes in trial protocols and published reports, the Instrument for reporting Planned Endpoints in Clinical Trials (InsPECT) is being developed. The final product will provide unique InsPECT extensions to the SPIRIT (Standard Protocol Items: Recommendations for Interventional Trials) and CONSORT (Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials) reporting guidelines. METHODS: The InsPECT SPIRIT and CONSORT extensions will be developed in accordance with the methodological framework created by the EQUATOR (Enhancing the Quality and Transparency of Health Research Quality) Network for reporting guideline development. Development will consist of (1) the creation of an initial list of candidate outcome reporting items synthesized from expert consultations and a scoping review of existing guidance for reporting outcomes in trial protocols and reports; (2) a three-round international Delphi study to identify additional candidate items and assess candidate item importance on a 9-point Likert scale, completed by stakeholders such as trial report and protocol authors, systematic review authors, biostatisticians and epidemiologists, reporting guideline developers, clinicians, journal editors, and research ethics board representatives; and (3) an in-person expert consensus meeting to finalize the set of essential outcome reporting items for trial protocols and reports, respectively. The consensus meeting discussions will be independently facilitated and informed by the empirical evidence identified in the primary literature and through the opinions (aggregate rankings and comments) collected via the Delphi study. An integrated knowledge translation approach will be used throughout InsPECT development to facilitate implementation and dissemination, in addition to standard post-development activities. DISCUSSION: InsPECT will provide evidence-informed and consensus-based standards focused on outcome reporting in clinical trials that can be applied across diverse disease areas, study populations, and outcomes. InsPECT will support the standardization of trial outcome reporting, which will maximize trial usability, reduce bias, foster trial replication, improve trial design and execution, and ultimately reduce research waste and help improve patient outcomes.

Comparative evidence on harms in pediatric randomized clinical trials from less developed versus more developed countries is limited.

OBJECTIVES: Evaluate comparative harm rates from medical interventions in pediatric randomized clinical trials (RCTs) from more developed (MDCs) and less developed countries (LDCs). STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING: Meta-epidemiologic empirical evaluation of Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews (June 2014) meta-analyses reporting clinically important harm-outcomes (severe adverse events [AEs], discontinuations due to AEs, any AE, and mortality) that included at least one pediatric RCT from MDCs and at least one from LDCs. We estimated relative odds ratios (RORs) for each harm, within each meta-analysis, between RCTs from MDCs and LDCs and calculated random-effects-summary-RORs (sRORs) for each harm across multiple meta-analyses. RESULTS: Only 1% (26/2,363) of meta-analyses with clinically important harm-outcomes in the entire Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews included pediatric RCTs both from MDCs and LDCs. We analyzed 26 meta-analyses with 244 data sets from pediatric RCTs, 116 from MDCs and 128 from LDCs (64 and 66 unique RCTs respectively). The summary ROR was 0.92 (95% confidence intervals: 0.78-1.08) for severe AEs; 1.13 (0.54-2.34) for discontinuations due to AEs; 1.10 (0.77-1.59) for any AE; and 0.99 (0.61-1.61) for mortality and for the all-harms-combined-end point 0.96 (0.83-1.10). Differences of ROR-point-estimates ≥2-fold between MDCs and LDCs were identified in 35% of meta-analyses. CONCLUSION: We found no major systematic differences in harm rates in pediatric trials between MDCs and LDCs, but data on harms in children were overall very limited.

Are child-centric aspects in newborn and child health systematic review and meta-analysis protocols and reports adequately reported?-two systematic reviews.

BACKGROUND: Evidence suggests that newborn and child health systematic reviews and meta-analyses exhibit poor quality in reporting. The "Preferred Reporting Items in Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis" (PRISMA) and PRISMA-Protocols (PRISMA-P) checklists have been developed to improve the reporting of systematic review results and protocols, respectively. We aimed to evaluate the clarity and transparency in reporting of child-centric items in child health systematic reviews (SRs) and SR protocols and to identify areas where reporting could be strengthened. METHODS: Two preliminary lists of potential child-centric reporting items were used to examine current reporting. The Cochrane, DARE, MEDLINE, and EMBASE libraries were searched from 2010 to 2014 for systematic reviews that included children. Each report and protocol that met the inclusion criteria had their quality of reporting assessed by their reporting of child-centric items. Quality of reporting was assessed per whether one third, one to two thirds, or more than two thirds of papers complied with potential child-centric potential modifications/extensions to PRISMA and were analyzed by the following: (i) paper type (i.e., report vs. protocol), (ii) publication type (i.e., Cochrane vs. non-Cochrane), and (iii) population type (i.e., child-only vs. mixed populations vs. family/maternal). RESULTS: Of the 414 eligible articles, 248 reports and 76 protocols were included. In 21 of 24 potential SR reporting items and 13 of 14 potential SR protocol reporting items, less than two thirds of papers met the child-centric reporting item requirements. Mixed population studies displayed significantly poorer reporting in comparison to child-only and family/maternal intervention studies for 11 potential SR reporting items (p < 0.05) and five potential SR protocol items (p < 0.05). When comparing non-Cochrane to Cochrane reports and protocols, five items in both lists were found to perform significantly poorer in non-Cochrane reports (p < 0.05). Significant differences in reporting quality were found in three of 14 items shared between the potential SR reporting items and potential SR protocol reporting items (p < 0.05). CONCLUSIONS: Newborn and child health systematic reviews and meta-analyses exhibit incomplete reporting, thereby hindering prudent decision-making by healthcare providers and policy makers. These results provide a rationale for the implementation of child-centric extensions and modifications to current PRISMA and PRISMA-P, such as to improve reporting in this population.

Do systematic reviews on pediatric topics need special methodological considerations?

BACKGROUND: Systematic reviews are key tools to enable decision making by healthcare providers and policymakers. Despite the availability of the evidence based Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analysis (PRISMA-2009 and PRISMA-P 2015) statements that were developed to improve the transparency and quality of reporting of systematic reviews, uncertainty on how to deal with pediatric-specific methodological challenges of systematic reviews impairs decision-making in child health. In this paper, we identify methodological challenges specific to the design, conduct and reporting of pediatric systematic reviews, and propose a process to address these challenges. DISCUSSION: One fundamental decision at the outset of a systematic review is whether to focus on a pediatric population only, or to include both adult and pediatric populations. Both from the policy and patient care point of view, the appropriateness of interventions and comparators administered to pre-defined pediatric age subgroup is critical. Decisions need to be based on the biological plausibility of differences in treatment effects across the developmental trajectory in children. Synthesis of evidence from different trials is often impaired by the use of outcomes and measurement instruments that differ between trials and are neither relevant nor validated in the pediatric population. Other issues specific to pediatric systematic reviews include lack of pediatric-sensitive search strategies and inconsistent choices of pediatric age subgroups in meta-analyses. In addition to these methodological issues generic to all pediatric systematic reviews, special considerations are required for reviews of health care interventions' safety and efficacy in neonatology, global health, comparative effectiveness interventions and individual participant data meta-analyses. To date, there is no standard approach available to overcome this problem. We propose to develop a consensus-based checklist of essential items which researchers should consider when they are planning (PRISMA-PC-Protocol for Children) or reporting (PRISMA-C-reporting for Children) a pediatric systematic review. Available guidelines including PRISMA do not cover the complexity associated with the conduct and reporting of systematic reviews in the pediatric population; they require additional and modified standards for reporting items. Such guidance will facilitate the translation of knowledge from the literature to bedside care and policy, thereby enhancing delivery of care and improving child health outcomes.