for the Pediatric Emergency Research Canada (PERC) Concussion Team IMPORTANCE Approximately one-third of children experiencing acute concussion experience ongoing somatic, cognitive, and psychological or behavioral symptoms, referred to as persistent postconcussion symptoms (PPCS). However, validated and pragmatic tools enabling clinicians to identify patients at risk for PPCS do not exist. OBJECTIVE To derive and validate a clinical risk score for PPCS among children presenting to the emergency department. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS Prospective, multicenter cohort study (Predicting and Preventing Postconcussive Problems in Pediatrics [5P]) enrolled young patients (aged 5-<18 years) who presented within 48 hours of an acute head injury at 1 of 9 pediatric emergency departments within the Pediatric Emergency Research Canada (PERC) network from August 2013 through September 2014 (derivation cohort) and from October 2014 through June 2015 (validation cohort). Participants completed follow-up 28 days after the injury. EXPOSURES All eligible patients had concussions consistent with the Zurich consensus diagnostic criteria. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES The primary outcome was PPCS risk score at 28 days, which was defined as 3 or more new or worsening symptoms using the patient-reported Postconcussion Symptom Inventory compared with recalled state of being prior to the injury. RESULTS In total, 3063 patients (median age, 12.0 years [interquartile range, 9.2-14.6 years]; 1205 [39.3%] girls) were enrolled (n = 2006 in the derivation cohort; n = 1057 in the validation cohort) and 2584 of whom (n = 1701 [85%] in the derivation cohort; n = 883 [84%] in the validation cohort) completed follow-up at 28 days after the injury. Persistent postconcussion symptoms were present in 801 patients (31.0%) (n = 510 [30.0%] in the derivation cohort and n = 291 [33.0%] in the validation cohort). The 12-point PPCS risk score model for the derivation cohort included the variables of female sex, age of 13 years or older, physician-diagnosed migraine history, prior concussion with symptoms lasting longer than 1 week, headache, sensitivity to noise, fatigue, answering questions slowly, and 4 or more errors on the Balance Error Scoring System tandem stance. The area under the curve was 0.71 (95% CI, 0.69-0.74) for the derivation cohort and 0.68 (95% CI, 0.65-0.72) for the validation cohort. CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCEA clinical risk score developed among children presenting to the emergency department with concussion and head injury within the previous 48 hours had modest discrimination to stratify PPCS risk at 28 days. Before this score is adopted in clinical practice, further research is needed for external validation, assessment of accuracy in an office setting, and determination of clinical utility.

DILEMMAIt has long been an axiom in clinical pediatrics that "children are not just little adults." It has also been recognized that there are many changes from birth through childhood and the adolescent years. However, the full implications of pediatric age groupings for health care and research are still not adequately understood. There is still much to be discovered about children' s biological and psychological development and how these processes affect the effectiveness and efficacy of interventions. Trial design that accounts for age differences and promotes consistency in reporting of age-related data is essential to ensure the validity and clinical usefulness of pediatric trial data.A recent study highlighted variable treatment efficacy in children versus adults. In this study, 128 meta-analyses from Cochrane reviews, containing data on at least 1 adult and 1 pediatric randomized controlled trial (RCT) with a binary primary efficacy outcome, were reviewed. 1 The authors found that in all except 1 case, the 95% confidence intervals could not exclude a relative difference in treatment efficacy between adults and children of .20%; in two-thirds of these cases, the relative difference in observed point estimates was .50%. The study also highlighted the paucity of RCTs in pediatrics; the median number of children per metaanalysis was 2.5 times smaller than the number of adults.Children and adults seem to have distinctive responses to treatments. For example, administration of phenobarbitones is useful for adults with cerebral malaria and is associated with decreased convulsions. However, in children, this drug is associated with increased 6-month mortality. Similarly, corticosteroids may offer survival benefit for adults with bacterial meningitis but not for children with the same condition. In acute traumatic brain injury, corticosteroids did not decrease mortality in adults, but there was a trend for increased mortality in children. 1 In asthma, long-acting b2-agonists decreased exacerbations in adults but tended to increase exacerbations in children. 1 Intravenous lorazepam, when compared with diazepam in status epilepticus, led to significantly more discontinuations of status in adults but not in children. It is not surprising then that although using an algorithm for extrapolation of adult data for use in pediatric drug licensing and development was found to be useful for streamlining drug development and approvals for pediatric use, complete extrapolation from adult data were only appropriate for 6% of drugs reviewed. 2 Beyond the stark contrast in the efficacy of pharmacologic interventions between children and adults, considerable variation of adverse events and morbidity can be anticipated across the pediatric age range. Authors of a recent study of pediatric drug surveillance and adverse event reporting concluded that "suspect drugs and adverse events should be evaluated in the context of age groups" because both drug utilization and the ability to report adverse events vary by age. 3 For example, t...

Objective To conduct a systematic review of the efficacy and safety of exogenous melatonin in managing secondary sleep disorders and sleep disorders accompanying sleep restriction, such as jet lag and shiftwork disorder. Data sources 13 electronic databases and reference lists of relevant reviews and included studies; Associated Professional Sleep Society abstracts (1999 to 2003). Study selection The efficacy review included randomised controlled trials; the safety review included randomised and non-randomised controlled trials. Quality assessment Randomised controlled trials were assessed by using the Jadad Scale and criteria by Schulz et al, and non-randomised controlled trials by the Downs and Black checklist. Data extraction and synthesis One reviewer extracted data and another reviewer verified the data extracted. The inverse variance method was used to weight studies and the random effects model was used to analyse data. Main results Six randomised controlled trials with 97 participants showed no evidence that melatonin had an effect on sleep onset latency in people with secondary sleep disorders (weighted mean difference − 13.2 (95% confidence interval − 27.3 to 0.9) min). Nine randomised controlled trials with 427 participants showed no evidence that melatonin had an effect on sleep onset latency in people who had sleep disorders accompanying sleep restriction ( − 1.0 ( − 2.3 to 0.3) min). 17 randomised controlled trials with 651 participants showed no evidence of adverse effects of melatonin with short term use (three months or less). Conclusions There is no evidence that melatonin is effective in treating secondary sleep disorders or sleep disorders accompanying sleep restriction, such as jet lag and shiftwork disorder. There is evidence that melatonin is safe with short term use.

No abstract

Objectives To evaluate the risk of bias tool, introduced by the Cochrane Collaboration for assessing the internal validity of randomised trials, for inter-rater agreement, concurrent validity compared with the Jadad scale and Schulz approach to allocation concealment, and the relation between risk of bias and effect estimates. Design Cross sectional study. Study sample 163 trials in children. Main outcome measures Inter-rater agreement between reviewers assessing trials using the risk of bias tool (weighted κ), time to apply the risk of bias tool compared with other approaches to quality assessment (paired t test), degree of correlation for overall risk compared with overall quality scores (Kendall's τ statistic), and magnitude of effect estimates for studies classified as being at high, unclear, or low risk of bias (metaregression). Results Inter-rater agreement on individual domains of the risk of bias tool ranged from slight (κ=0.13) to substantial (κ=0.74). The mean time to complete the risk of bias tool was significantly longer than for the Jadad scale and Schulz approach, individually or combined (8. 8 minutes (SD 2.2) per study v 2.0 (SD 0.8), P<0.001). There was low correlation between risk of bias overall compared with the Jadad scores (P=0.395) and Schulz approach (P=0.064). Effect sizes differed between studies assessed as being at high or unclear risk of bias (0.52) compared with those at low risk (0.23). Conclusions Inter-rater agreement varied across domains of the risk of bias tool. Generally, agreement was poorer for those items that required more judgment. There was low correlation between assessments of overall risk of bias and two common approaches to quality assessment: the Jadad scale and Schulz approach to allocation concealment. Overall risk of bias as assessed by the risk of bias tool differentiated effect estimates, with more conservative estimates for studies at low risk.

No abstract

BACKGROUND:Hypnotics have a role in the management of acute insomnia; however, the efficacy and safety of pharmacological interventions in the management of chronic insomnia is unclear. OBJECTIVE:The objective of this paper is to conduct a systematic review of the efficacy and safety of drug treatments for chronic insomnia in adults.DATA SOURCES: Twenty-one electronic databases were searched, up to July 2006.STUDY SELECTION: Randomized double-blind, placebocontrolled trials were eligible. Quality was assessed using the Jadad scale. Data were pooled using the random effects model. DATA SYNTHESIS:One hundred and five studies were included in the review. Sleep onset latency, as measured by polysomnography, was significantly decreased for benzodiazepines (BDZ), (weighted mean difference: −10.0 minutes; 95% CI: −16.6, −3.4), non-benzodiazepines (non-BDZ) (−12.8 minutes; 95% CI: −16.9, −8.8) and antidepressants (ADP) (−7.0 minutes; 95% CI: −10.7, −3.3). Sleep onset latency assessed by sleep diaries was also improved (BDZ: −19.6 minutes; 95% CI: −23.9, −15.3; non-BDZ: −17.0 minutes; 95% CI: −20.0, −14.0; ADP: −12.2 minutes; 95% CI: −22.3, −2.2). Indirect comparisons between drug categories suggest BDZ and non-BDZ have a similar effect. All drug groups had a statistically significant higher risk of harm compared to placebo (BDZ: risk difference [RD]: 0.15; non-BDZ RD: 0.07; and ADP RD: 0.09), although the most commonly reported adverse events were minor. Indirect comparisons suggest that non-BDZ are safer than BDZ.CONCLUSIONS: Benzodiazepines and non-benzodiazepines are effective treatments in the management of chronic insomnia, although they pose a risk of harm. There is also some evidence that antidepressants are effective and that they pose a risk of harm.

No abstract