CClinicalTrials.gg
CompletedNCT01507090TAPEUpdated Feb 10, 2015Results posted

Validation of the Mercy TAPE

An observational study in Weight, sponsored by Susan Abdel-Rahman. Completed at 3 sites in United States. Open to participants aged 2 Months to 16 Years, including healthy volunteers. Per ClinicalTrials.gov, last updated 2015-02-10.

Sponsored by Susan Abdel-Rahman · Observational

Study type
Observational
Model
Cohort
Time perspective
Prospective
Enrollment
642
Ages
2 Months to 16 Years
Sex
All
01

Study summary

In 'real-world' health care settings there exist a number of circumstances where the weight of a child is desirable or even necessary but unavailable. Numerous weight estimation strategies have been described but each has limitations. Investigators at Children's Mercy Hospitals and Clinics recently developed a weight estimation method and tool that addresses the limitations of previously published methods. This study is intended to validate the device in a population of children 2 months to 16 years of age.

Read the detailed description

In 'real-world' health care settings there exist a number of circumstances where the weight of a child is desirable or even necessary but unavailable. The most conspicuous of these settings can be found in developing countries where many medical clinics lack suitable scales to obtain accurate infant and child weights. Though resource restrictions are less of an issue in developed countries, scenarios still exist where weight assessment is problematic. For example, accurate estimates of a child's weight are rarely available during emergency or trauma situations, and in some in-patient settings (e.g. critical care units, orthopedic clinics) obtaining an accurate patient weight can be impaired by the presence of external hoses, tubing, casts, and/or other medical equipment. Irrespective of the environment, the challenge that each of these settings present is the same; namely, the provision of age-appropriate, weight-based interventions which remain the most accurate approach to delivering therapy in children. Thus, techniques which permit accurate weight estimation address a critical medical need in both developing and developed countries.

Numerous weight estimation strategies have been described with each used to varying degrees in clinical practice. Many of the published techniques have distinct advantages. For example; simple age-based equations can be used without the need for reference materials, strategies that utilize preprinted tables or tools limit the risk of calculation errors. Other techniques present unnecessary complexities for the end-user including; the need for subjective assessments of habitus, the requirement to solve exponential equations, the call for multiple formulae delineated by age bracket, or the reliance on one or more reference charts. Irrespective of their simplicity or complexity, almost all of the reported techniques have significant limitations. Relatively few methods have been evaluated in pediatric populations of varying races, ethnicities and nationalities and essentially no single previously described method provides accurate estimates of weight across broad age- and weight-bands.

Apart from parental recall which can vary in accuracy, the most commonly used strategies for estimating weight rely on the child's age, length, or a combination of the two parameters. While simple and easy to integrate into a weight estimation technique, age based strategies fail to account for the extremes of body composition and stature that are observed in children of the same age. Similarly, length based strategies do not take into consideration that two children of the same height may demonstrate markedly discrepant weights based on underlying nutritional status (e.g. malnourished, underweight, overweight, obese). Consequently, many of the currently available weight estimation strategies perform well in only a small subset of children. As such, there remains a critical need for weight estimation methods that are accurate across a wide range of pediatric ages, weights, lengths, nationalities and body compositions despite the relative abundance of strategies that already exist.

Investigators at Children's Mercy Hospitals and Clinics recently developed and validated a weight estimation method (the Mercy MethodTM) that addresses the principal limitations of previously published methods, requires no subjective assessment and performs robustly independently of age and length over a broad range of weights. As with other strategies, the Mercy Method incorporates growth velocity but uses humeral length as a surrogate for total body length. Total body length will be discrepant depending on whether the measurement is obtained with the child standing or lying down and can be difficult to obtain in a child who is uncooperative or obtunded. The Mercy Method also incorporates body habitus as a quantitative variable which improves the accuracy of the overall length-based weight estimate and removes the subjective nature of categorizing the child's body type into one of a few alternatives (e.g. "slim," "average," or "heavy"). By developing a model with these considerations in mind we were able to expand the age range to which our weight estimation method can be applied and remove length restrictions which are typically imposed because of the disproportionate increase in weight-for-height observed as children get older.

In brief, demographic and anthropometric data on children 2 months to 16 years of age were extracted from the NHANES database and individual datasets were randomly assigned into a method development (n=17,328) or a method validation (n=1,938) set. Humeral length (HL) and mid-upper arm circumference (MUAC) were used to develop a weight estimation method by 1) collapsing length and habitus measurements into discrete bins, 2) examining the median population weight for each bin-pair, 3) statistically weighting the bin-pairs for age and sample size, and 4) calculating a fractional weight for each HL and MUAC. An individual weight estimate is generated by the simple addition of the MUAC and HL fractional bin value that corresponds to that individual child's measurements. The predictive performance this method was evaluated using the internal validation set and compared with the performance of 13 previously published weight estimation methods applied to the same data.

The Mercy Method outperformed the 13 other published methods when evaluated for goodness-of-fit, mean error, mean percentage error, root mean square error and percentage of children in agreement within 10% of actual weight. Most of the age-and length-based strategies examined overestimated weight in children classified, by BMI, as underweight and significantly underestimated weight in children classified as overweight or obese. The degree to which this occurred depended largely on the constants driving their mathematical equations, with some methods biased toward more accurate prediction in children of lower weight (e.g. Broselow) and others performing better among children in the higher weight brackets (e.g. Theron). Irrespective of directionality, the bias observed with some methods at the extremes of weight represented as much as a 3-fold error between predicted and actual weights. Discrepancies of this magnitude can be dangerous, and potentially life-threatening, depending on how 'forgiving' the intervention or treatment that is being administered.

The singular habitus-based method (i.e. Cattermole) ranked among the best (after the Mercy Method) with respect to absolute bias; however, it performed only moderately well when precision and MPE were factored into the assessment. This method, which was developed in Chinese children consistently overestimated weight at lower absolute weights and underestimated weight at higher absolute weight irrespective of BMI percentile. This suggests that while the relationship between weight and MUAC tends to be linear within any given population, the mathematical constants that define the relationship differ between populations having different height-for-weight averages. Given the nature of the data used to develop and validate the Mercy Method, comparative performance of the Devised Weight Estimation Method (DWEM, the only other method to incorporate both body length and body habitus) could not be assessed. Notably, the DWEM involves a subjective rating of "slim," "average," or "heavy". While DWEM has been shown to outperform other age-based methods, the categorical assignment of habitus coupled with inconsistencies in subjective assessment between and within observers [inter-rater agreement- 78% (range: 58-93%); intra-rater agreement- 86% (range: 81-94%)] contributed to bias and precision estimates that were larger than observed with strategies based solely on length.

While the Mercy Method can be used as a reference table, a more practical application was the development of a simple and inexpensive device that can perform the two required measurements simultaneously and report the predicted weight directly from the device as opposed to consulting a separate table or chart. Consequently, the 3D Mercy TAPE was developed to perform both measurements simultaneously requiring no external references to arrive at the weight estimate for a given child. An alternative 2D Mercy TAPE was also designed . It requires two serial measurements with the same simple addition used with the 3D TAPE but does not require any folding or manipulation when removed from its packaging. Both devices are intended to be printed on any flexible, non-stretchable medium (e.g. paper, plastic coated paper, fiberglass) so as to be disposable or semi-permanent, inexpensive to mass produce and easy to store.

In its numeric form, the Mercy TAPE would be expected have limited utility in settings where care providers are illiterate or do not use a written language. However, the tool can be easily revised with colors and/or symbols whose combination would correspond to a given dose, intervention strategy or weight target. While the Mercy Method is expected to perform well in U.S. children given its creation using data from a U.S. database, external validation of the in non-U.S. settings is currently ongoing with support of the World Health Organization to gauge its utility in children of varying ethnicity and geographic origin. The related 2D and 3D Mercy TAPE still awaits prospective evaluation. The requisite study to satisfy the validation requirements are described herein under the hypothesis: The Mercy TAPE will demonstrate the same predictive performance as the Mercy method in an independent pediatric assessment.

02

Conditions studied

  • Weight

Browse trials for

Keywords

  • children for whom there is no scale to determine weight
03

In context

Body Weight

1,223 studies on the registry are indexed under Body Weight; 131 are open to participants now.

This study's enrollment of 642 is above the median of 140 across 238 observational studies indexed under Body Weight.

Browse Body Weight studies →

Lead sponsor

This is the only study on the registry with Susan Abdel-Rahman as lead sponsor.

Counted across the registry records on this site, refreshed daily.

04

Who can participate

Ages eligible
2 Months to 16 Years
Sexes eligible
All
Accepts healthy volunteers
Yes
Sampling method
Probability sample

Study population

Normal healthy children

Inclusion criteria

  • age between 2 months and 16 years of age
  • capable of having the measurements performed
  • parent or legal guardian is willing and able to provide verbal permission and, when appropriate, the participant has provided verbal assent to participate.

Exclusion criteria

Exclusion Criteria:

  • unwilling to participate in the study procedures
  • known or apparent limb deformities
  • presence of any external medical equipment attached to the child
  • underlying pathological condition that would produce abnormal body composition for age (e.g. edema)
  • underlying pharmacologic management that would produce abnormal body composition for age (e.g. chronic oral corticosteroid use)
  • In the opinion of the physicians providing patient care and those conducting the study, there are real or perceived contraindications for inclusion as a participant in the study
05

Study design

Observational model
Cohort
Time perspective
Prospective
Enrollment
642 participants (actual)
Patient registry
No

Groups and cohorts

  • Normal Children

    Otherwise healthy children 2 months to 16 years of age.

    Device: Mercy TAPE

Interventions

  • DeviceMercy TAPE

    2D Mercy TAPE and 3D Mercy TAPE

06

What researchers measure

Primary outcomes

  1. Predictive Performance of the Mercy TAPE (Percent of Participants Predicted Within 20% of Their Actual Weight)

    Evaluate the weight generated by the 2D and 3D Mercy TAPE (kg) with the actual weight (kg). Outcome measures reported below reflect the percentage of participants whose weight estimations using the Mercy TAPEs are within 20% of their actual weight.

    Time frame: study day 1

  2. Predictive Performance of the Mercy TAPE (Slope)

    Evaluate the weight generated by the 2D and 3D Mercy TAPE (kg) with the actual weight (kg). Outcome measures reported below reflect the slope of the regression equation comparing observed vs. predicted weight.

    Time frame: study day 1

  3. Predictive Performance of the Mercy TAPE (Intercept)

    Evaluate the weight generated by the 2D and 3D Mercy TAPE (kg) with the actual weight (kg). Outcome measures reported below reflect the intercept of the regression equation comparing observed vs. predicted weight.

    Time frame: study day 1

  4. Predictive Performance of the Mercy TAPE (Mean Error)

    Evaluate the weight generated by the 2D and 3D Mercy TAPE (kg) with the actual weight (kg)

    Time frame: study day 1

  5. Predictive Performance of the Mercy TAPE (Mean Percentage Error)

    Evaluate the weight generated by the 2D and 3D Mercy TAPE (kg) with the actual weight (kg)

    Time frame: study day 1

  6. Predictive Performance of the Mercy TAPE (Corelation Coefficient)

    Evaluate the weight generated by the 2D and 3D Mercy TAPE (kg) with the actual weight (kg)

    Time frame: study day 1

  7. Predictive Performance of the Mercy TAPE

    Evaluate the weight generated by the 2D and 3D Mercy TAPE (kg) with the actual weight (kg)

    Time frame: study day 1

  8. Equivalence of the Mercy Method and the 2D and 3D Mercy TAPEs (Ratio)

    Evaluate the weight generated by the 2D and 3D Mercy TAPE (kg) with weight generated by the Mercy method (kg). Outcome measures reported below reflect the slope of the regression equation comparing method predicted vs. TAPE predicted weight.

    Time frame: study day 1

  9. Equivalence of the Mercy Method and the 2D and 3D Mercy TAPEs (Concordance Corelation Coefficient)

    Evaluate the weight generated by the 2D and 3D Mercy TAPE (kg) with weight generated by the Mercy method (kg). Outcome measures reported below reflect the intercept of the regression equation comparing method predicted vs. TAPE predicted weight.

    Time frame: study day 1

  10. Equivalence of the Mercy Method and the 2D and 3D Mercy TAPEs (% Within 10%)

    Evaluate the weight generated by the 2D and 3D Mercy TAPE (kg) with weight generated by the Mercy method (kg). Outcome measures reported below reflect the percentage weight estimations using the Mercy TAPEs that are within 10% of the weight estimations using the Mercy Method.

    Time frame: study day 1

Secondary outcomes

  1. Inter-rater Reliability for the 2D and 3D Mercy TAPEs.

    Intraclass correlation coefficient

    Time frame: study day 1

  2. Device Print Batch Variability

    Geometric mean of the ratio (CV) of true to estimated weight calculated by TAPE version. Mercy TAPEs were printed in 2 batches numbers "1" and "2" accordingly.

    Time frame: study day 1

  3. Predictive Performance of the Mercy Method (Intercept)

    Evaluate the weight generated by the Mercy method (kg) with the actual weight (kg)

    Time frame: study day 1

  4. Predictive Performance of the Mercy Method (Slope)

    Evaluate the weight generated by the Mercy method (kg) with the actual weight (kg)

    Time frame: study day 1

  5. Predictive Performance of the Mercy Method (Percent of Participants)

    Evaluate the weight generated by the Mercy method (kg) with the actual weight (kg). The outcome measure below relfects the percent of participants with weight estimated within within 20% of actual weight.

    Time frame: study day 1

  6. Predictive Performance of the Mercy Method (Mean Error)

    Evaluate the weight generated by the Mercy method (kg) with the actual weight (kg)

    Time frame: study day 1

  7. Predictive Performance of the Mercy Method (Mean Percentage Error)

    Evaluate the weight generated by the Mercy method (kg) with the actual weight (kg)

    Time frame: study day 1

  8. Predictive Performance of the Mercy Method

    Evaluate the weight generated by the Mercy method (kg) with the actual weight (kg)

    Time frame: study day 1

07

Results

Posted Feb 10, 2015

Participant flow

Enrollment from clinics, inpatient wards and referrals.

Participant flow — Overall Study
MilestoneNormal Children
Started642
Completed624
Not completed18
Withdrew: Incomplete dataset18

Outcome measures

PrimaryPredictive Performance of the Mercy TAPE (Percent of Participants Predicted Within 20% of Their Actual Weight)

Evaluate the weight generated by the 2D and 3D Mercy TAPE (kg) with the actual weight (kg). Outcome measures reported below reflect the percentage of participants whose weight estimations using the Mercy TAPEs are within 20% of their actual weight.

Time frame:
study day 1
Reported as:
Number · percentage of participants
Predictive Performance of the Mercy TAPE (Percent of Participants Predicted Within 20% of Their Actual Weight)
percentage of participants2D-TAPE3D-TAPE
Predictive Performance of the Mercy TAPE (Percent of Participants Predicted Within 20% of Their Actual Weight)98.1 (97.0 to 99.2)93.3 (91.3 to 95.2)
PrimaryPredictive Performance of the Mercy TAPE (Slope)

Evaluate the weight generated by the 2D and 3D Mercy TAPE (kg) with the actual weight (kg). Outcome measures reported below reflect the slope of the regression equation comparing observed vs. predicted weight.

Time frame:
study day 1
Reported as:
Number · unitless
Predictive Performance of the Mercy TAPE (Slope)
unitless2D-TAPE3D-TAPE
Predictive Performance of the Mercy TAPE (Slope)0.980 (0.969 to 0.992)0.977 (0.964 to 0.990)
SecondaryInter-rater Reliability for the 2D and 3D Mercy TAPEs.

Intraclass correlation coefficient

Time frame:
study day 1
Reported as:
Number · Intraclass correlation coefficient
Inter-rater Reliability for the 2D and 3D Mercy TAPEs.
Intraclass correlation coefficient2D-TAPE3D-TAPEMercy Method
Inter-rater Reliability for the 2D and 3D Mercy TAPEs.0.9930.9800.990
PrimaryPredictive Performance of the Mercy TAPE (Intercept)

Evaluate the weight generated by the 2D and 3D Mercy TAPE (kg) with the actual weight (kg). Outcome measures reported below reflect the intercept of the regression equation comparing observed vs. predicted weight.

Time frame:
study day 1
Reported as:
Number · kilograms
Predictive Performance of the Mercy TAPE (Intercept)
kilograms2D-TAPE3D-TAPE
Predictive Performance of the Mercy TAPE (Intercept)0.968 (0.498 to 1.439)1.019 (0.464 to 1.573)
PrimaryPredictive Performance of the Mercy TAPE (Mean Error)

Evaluate the weight generated by the 2D and 3D Mercy TAPE (kg) with the actual weight (kg)

Time frame:
study day 1
Reported as:
Mean · kilograms
Predictive Performance of the Mercy TAPE (Mean Error)
kilograms2D-TAPE3D-TAPE
Predictive Performance of the Mercy TAPE (Mean Error)0.28 ± 3.30.22 ± 3.9
PrimaryPredictive Performance of the Mercy TAPE (Mean Percentage Error)

Evaluate the weight generated by the 2D and 3D Mercy TAPE (kg) with the actual weight (kg)

Time frame:
study day 1
Reported as:
Mean · percentage error
Predictive Performance of the Mercy TAPE (Mean Percentage Error)
percentage error2D-TAPE3D-TAPE
Predictive Performance of the Mercy TAPE (Mean Percentage Error)1.65 ± 8.51.91 ± 11.1
SecondaryDevice Print Batch Variability

Geometric mean of the ratio (CV) of true to estimated weight calculated by TAPE version. Mercy TAPEs were printed in 2 batches numbers "1" and "2" accordingly.

Time frame:
study day 1
Reported as:
Geometric mean · ratio
Device Print Batch Variability
ratio2D-TAPE3D-TAPE
version 11.01 ± 0.081.02 ± 0.11
version 21.01 ± 0.091.01 ± 0.11
SecondaryPredictive Performance of the Mercy Method (Intercept)

Evaluate the weight generated by the Mercy method (kg) with the actual weight (kg)

Time frame:
study day 1
Reported as:
Number · kilograms
Predictive Performance of the Mercy Method (Intercept)
kilogramsNormal Children
Predictive Performance of the Mercy Method (Intercept)1.083 (0.584 to 1.581)
SecondaryPredictive Performance of the Mercy Method (Slope)

Evaluate the weight generated by the Mercy method (kg) with the actual weight (kg)

Time frame:
study day 1
Reported as:
Number · unitless
Predictive Performance of the Mercy Method (Slope)
unitlessNormal Children
Predictive Performance of the Mercy Method (Slope)0.980 (0.968 to 0.992)
SecondaryPredictive Performance of the Mercy Method (Percent of Participants)

Evaluate the weight generated by the Mercy method (kg) with the actual weight (kg). The outcome measure below relfects the percent of participants with weight estimated within within 20% of actual weight.

Time frame:
study day 1
Reported as:
Number · percent of participants
Predictive Performance of the Mercy Method (Percent of Participants)
percent of participantsNormal Children
Predictive Performance of the Mercy Method (Percent of Participants)97.3 (96.0 to 98.6)
SecondaryPredictive Performance of the Mercy Method (Mean Error)

Evaluate the weight generated by the Mercy method (kg) with the actual weight (kg)

Time frame:
study day 1
Reported as:
Mean · kilograms
Predictive Performance of the Mercy Method (Mean Error)
kilogramsNormal Children
Predictive Performance of the Mercy Method (Mean Error)0.39 ± 3.5
PrimaryPredictive Performance of the Mercy TAPE (Corelation Coefficient)

Evaluate the weight generated by the 2D and 3D Mercy TAPE (kg) with the actual weight (kg)

Time frame:
study day 1
Reported as:
Number · correlation coefficient
Predictive Performance of the Mercy TAPE (Corelation Coefficient)
correlation coefficient2D-TAPE3D-TAPE
Predictive Performance of the Mercy TAPE (Corelation Coefficient)0.9790.971
PrimaryPredictive Performance of the Mercy TAPE

Evaluate the weight generated by the 2D and 3D Mercy TAPE (kg) with the actual weight (kg)

Time frame:
study day 1
Reported as:
Number · root mean square error (kg)
Predictive Performance of the Mercy TAPE
root mean square error (kg)2D-TAPE3D-TAPE
Predictive Performance of the Mercy TAPE3.333.92
PrimaryEquivalence of the Mercy Method and the 2D and 3D Mercy TAPEs (Ratio)

Evaluate the weight generated by the 2D and 3D Mercy TAPE (kg) with weight generated by the Mercy method (kg). Outcome measures reported below reflect the slope of the regression equation comparing method predicted vs. TAPE predicted weight.

Time frame:
study day 1
Reported as:
Number · unitless
Equivalence of the Mercy Method and the 2D and 3D Mercy TAPEs (Ratio)
unitless2D-TAPE3D-TAPE
Equivalence of the Mercy Method and the 2D and 3D Mercy TAPEs (Ratio)0.998 (0.994 to 1.002)0.998 (0.991 to 1.005)
PrimaryEquivalence of the Mercy Method and the 2D and 3D Mercy TAPEs (Concordance Corelation Coefficient)

Evaluate the weight generated by the 2D and 3D Mercy TAPE (kg) with weight generated by the Mercy method (kg). Outcome measures reported below reflect the intercept of the regression equation comparing method predicted vs. TAPE predicted weight.

Time frame:
study day 1
Reported as:
Number · unitless
Equivalence of the Mercy Method and the 2D and 3D Mercy TAPEs (Concordance Corelation Coefficient)
unitless2D-TAPE3D-TAPE
Equivalence of the Mercy Method and the 2D and 3D Mercy TAPEs (Concordance Corelation Coefficient)0.996 (0.996 to 0.997)0.993 (0.991 to 0.994)
PrimaryEquivalence of the Mercy Method and the 2D and 3D Mercy TAPEs (% Within 10%)

Evaluate the weight generated by the 2D and 3D Mercy TAPE (kg) with weight generated by the Mercy method (kg). Outcome measures reported below reflect the percentage weight estimations using the Mercy TAPEs that are within 10% of the weight estimations using the Mercy Method.

Time frame:
study day 1
Reported as:
Number · percent of estimations
Equivalence of the Mercy Method and the 2D and 3D Mercy TAPEs (% Within 10%)
percent of estimations2D-TAPE3D-TAPE
Equivalence of the Mercy Method and the 2D and 3D Mercy TAPEs (% Within 10%)91.7 (89.5 to 93.8)76.4 (73.1 to 79.8)
SecondaryPredictive Performance of the Mercy Method (Mean Percentage Error)

Evaluate the weight generated by the Mercy method (kg) with the actual weight (kg)

Time frame:
study day 1
Reported as:
Mean · percentage error
Predictive Performance of the Mercy Method (Mean Percentage Error)
percentage errorNormal Children
Predictive Performance of the Mercy Method (Mean Percentage Error)1.86 ± 8.9
SecondaryPredictive Performance of the Mercy Method

Evaluate the weight generated by the Mercy method (kg) with the actual weight (kg)

Time frame:
study day 1
Reported as:
Number · correlation coefficieint
Predictive Performance of the Mercy Method
correlation coefficieintNormal Children
Predictive Performance of the Mercy Method0.977
SecondaryPredictive Performance of the Mercy Method

Evaluate the weight generated by the Mercy method (kg) with the actual weight (kg)

Time frame:
study day 1
Reported as:
Number · root mean square error (kg)
Predictive Performance of the Mercy Method
root mean square error (kg)Normal Children
Predictive Performance of the Mercy Method3.55

Adverse events

Non-serious events are listed at a 0.01% frequency threshold.

Adverse event summary by group
GroupDeathsSeriousOther
Normal Children—0/642 (0%)0/642 (0%)

Baseline characteristics

Age, Categorical
Age, Categorical(Participants)Normal Children
<=18 years642
Between 18 and 65 years0
>=65 years0
Age, Continuous
Age, Continuous(years)Normal Children
Mean8.4 ± 4.9
Sex: Female, Male
Sex: Female, Male(Participants)Normal Children
Female51.7
Male48.3
Region of Enrollment
Region of Enrollment(participants)Normal Children
United States642
08

Study locations

3 sites
  • University of Arkansas for Medical Sciences
    Little Rock, Arkansas 72202, United States
  • Children's Mercy Hospital and Clinics
    Kansas City, Missouri 64108, United States
  • Milton Hershey Medical Center
    Hershey, Pennsylvania 17033, United States
09

References and documents

Publications

  • Abdel-Rahman SM, Paul IM, James LP, Lewandowski A; Best Pharmaceuticals for Children Act-Pediatric Trials Network. Evaluation of the Mercy TAPE: performance against the standard for pediatric weight estimation. Ann Emerg Med. 2013 Oct;62(4):332-339.e6. doi: 10.1016/j.annemergmed.2013.02.021. Epub 2013 Apr 17. PubMed 23602655 ↗
10

Updates

Tracking since Sep 25, 2026
No changes since tracking began. The registry record was last updated on Feb 10, 2015, before this site started recording changes on Sep 25, 2026. Its history is on ClinicalTrials.gov ↗
11

Registry details

Key details

Study ID
NCT01507090
Lead sponsor
Susan Abdel-Rahman
Collaborators
Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health and Human Development (NICHD)
Responsible party
Susan Abdel-Rahman (Professor of Pediatrics, Children's Mercy Hospital Kansas City) — Sponsor-investigator
First posted
Jan 10, 2012
Start date
Feb 2012
Primary completion
Mar 2012
Completion
Apr 2012
Results posted
Feb 10, 2015
Last update
Feb 10, 2015

Study contacts

Susan Abdel-Rahman, Pharm.D
principal investigator · Childrens Mercy Hospital

Oversight

Data monitoring committee
No
View the source record on ClinicalTrials.gov ↗

Not currently enrolling

This study is completed, as verified in Feb 2015. You cannot join it, but the record below documents what was studied.

Follow this study

Get an email when the registry record changes — status, dates, results — or when someone posts here.

Sign in to follow

Discussion

Questions and observations about this study, from anyone following it. Not medical advice, and not a channel to the study team — their contact details are on the registry record.

Sign in to join the discussion. Reading takes no account; posting does. You choose a display name, and a pseudonym is the default.

Nothing here yet. If you are running this trial, taking part in it, or weighing whether to, this is the place to say so.

Start the discussion