Randomization is an internationally accepted methodological tool used to perform sound clinical research. To ensure the clinical value of medical interventions, both evidence based medicine and new drug approvals require that randomized controlled trials (RCT) be conducted. Randomization prevents the manipulation of participant allocation and balances unknown confounders in a way no other method can. The gold standard RCT, however, is complex to conduct and requires significant financial and structural resources. In consequence, drug development and registration are primarily driven by the pharmaceutical industry. Within the field of pediatrics, we need high quality research tailored to children in order to reduce off-label use and to ensure that we expose children only to effective and, above all, safe drug treatments. The American and European regulatory authorities now offer programs to support such studies and clinical researchers and pharmaceutical industries are obliged to put them into practice in the best interest of the children. Issues relating to feasibility as well as ethical issues must be born in mind when planning RCTs in child populations. Obtaining informed assent from children in an adequate manner is one of several key elements. Moreover, it is essential to ensure equipoise before conducting a trial. Thus, issues relating to acceptability can be addressed and the discrimination of treatment groups within RCTs can be prevented. This narrative review addresses ethical and methodological aspects of RCTs in adults and especially in children and includes a quantitative analysis, which explores issues relating to the publication of RCTs.

In the publications analyzed, we found only limited information concerning methods and reflections on ethical principles of the trials. Improvements are thus necessary and possible. We suggest how such trials and their respective publications can be optimized for these aspects.

Unfortunately, as to the quality of clinical trials and their publications in minors little is known. Therefore, we assessed published reports of randomized, controlled clinical trials in minors, focusing on a common disease (asthma) and a defined spectrum of lifethreatening diseases (malignant diseases). Method: In an exploratory design, we scanned the publications for methodological aspects as well as indicators of ethical soundness, e.g., statements that informed consent had been obtained before the start of the trial or that a Data and Safety Monitoring Board ensured the patients' safety during the trial. We also looked for passages reflecting the debate on equipoise or other forms of weighing risks and benefits. Results: We found that many of these aspects, which according to the scientific literature and generally acknowledged guidelines are essential to ensure good-quality trials and trial reports, were not considered in the publications analyzed. Conclusion: Therefore, we call for a more transparent and consistent presentation of the trials, especially of safety aspects, relying on a more critical and transparent ethical reflection.

No abstract