To explore the current state of research on off-label drug use in children and identify the existing research gaps in this topic. Six literature databases were searched to identify studies focusing exclusively on off-label drug use in children (aged < 18 years) published in Chinese or English between 2016 and 2021. We also searched clinicaltrials.gov for pediatric clinical trials conducted in the same period and compared the numbers of studies on off-label use and clinical trials for the most commonly reported drugs and drug types. Our search revealed 568 studies on off-label drug use. Almost half of the studies (n = 240) were cross-sectional. A total of 212 specific drugs or drug types were addressed in 361 studies, the most frequent being antipsychotic agents (n = 12), dexmedetomidine (n = 10), and rituximab (n = 8). Antipsychotic agents were also the most common type of drug examined in clinical trials in children. We identified a total of 435 different types of off-label use, the top three being unapproved indication (n = 157), population (n = 96), or age (n = 36). Only about one-third of the studies reported collecting informed consent (n = 195) or having ethics committee approval (n = 166). Conclusions: Off-label use of antipsychotics in children is widely reported in the literature. We suggest pediatric researchers to consider the number of studies on off-label use and existing clinical trials on different drugs when selecting target drugs for new studies and systematic reviews. What is Known: center dot There exist a large number of studies on off-label drug use in children. What is New: center dot This is the first scoping review of studies on off-label drug use in children. center dot Off-label use of antipsychotic agents is widely reported.

Cutaneous lupus erythematosus (CLE) is an inflammatory, autoimmune disease encompassing a broad spectrum of subtypes including acute, subacute, chronic and intermittent CLE. Among these, chronic CLE can be further classified into several subclasses of lupus erythematosus (LE) such as discoid LE, verrucous LE, LE profundus, chilblain LE and Blaschko linear LE. To provide all dermatologists and rheumatologists with a practical guideline for the diagnosis, treatment and long-term management of CLE, this evidence- and consensus-based guideline was developed following the checklist established by the international Reporting Items for Practice Guidelines in Healthcare (RIGHT) Working Group and was registered at the International Practice Guideline Registry Platform. With the joint efforts of the Asian Dermatological Association (ADA), the Asian Academy of Dermatology and Venereology (AADV) and the Lupus Erythematosus Research Center of Chinese Society of Dermatology (CSD), a total of 25 dermatologists, 7 rheumatologists, one research scientist on lupus and 2 methodologists, from 16 countries/regions in Asia, America and Europe, participated in the development of this guideline. All recommendations were agreed on by at least 80% of the 32 voting physicians. As a consensus, diagnosis of CLE is mainly based on the evaluation of clinical and histopathological manifestations, with an exclusion of SLE by assessment of systemic involvement. For localized CLE lesions, topical corticosteroids and topical calcineurin inhibitors are first-line treatment. For widespread or severe CLE lesions and (or) cases resistant to topical treatment, systemic treatment including antimalarials and (or) short-term corticosteroids can be added. Notably, antimalarials are the first-line systemic treatment for all types of CLE, and can also be used in pregnant patients and pediatric patients. Second-line choices include thalidomide, retinoids, dapsone and MTX, whereas MMF is third-line treatment. Finally, pulsed-dye laser or surgery can be added as fourth-line treatment for localized, refractory lesions of CCLE in cosmetically unacceptable areas, whereas belimumab may be used as fourth-line treatment for widespread CLE lesions in patients with active SLE, or recurrence of ACLE during tapering of corticosteroids. As for management of the disease, patient education and a long-term follow-up are necessary. Disease activity, damage of skin and other organs, quality of life, comorbidities and possible adverse events are suggested to be assessed in every follow-up visit, when appropriate.

Background: The majority of children receiving care in the emergency department (ED) are discharged home, making discharge communication a key component of quality emergency care. Parents must have the knowledge and skills to effectively manage their child's ongoing care at home. Parental fatigue and stress, health literacy, and the fragmented nature of communication in the ED setting may contribute to suboptimal parent comprehension of discharge instructions and inappropriate ED return visits. The aim of this study was to examine how and why discharge communication works in a pediatric ED context and develop recommendations for practice, policy, and research. Methods: We systematically reviewed the published and gray literature. We searched electronic databases CINAHL, Medline, and Embase up to July 2017. Policies guiding discharge communication were also sought from pediatric emergency networks in Canada, USA, Australia, and the UK. Eligible studies included children less than 19 years of age with a focus on discharge communication in the ED as the primary objective. Included studies were appraised using relevant Joanna Briggs Institute (JBI) checklists. Textual summaries, content analysis, and conceptual mapping assisted with exploring relationships within and between data. We implemented an integrated knowledge translation approach to strengthen the relevancy of our research questions and assist with summarizing our findings. Results: A total of 5095 studies were identified in the initial search, with 75 articles included in the final review. Included studies focused on a range of illness presentations and employed a variety of strategies to deliver discharge instructions. Education was the most common intervention and the majority of studies targeted parent knowledge or behavior. Few interventions attempted to change healthcare provider knowledge or behavior. Assessing barriers to implementation, identifying relevant ED contextual factors, and understanding provider and patient attitudes and beliefs about discharge communication were identified as important factors for improving discharge communication practice. Conclusion: Existing literature examining discharge communication in pediatric emergency care varies widely. A theory-based approach to intervention design is needed to improve our understanding regarding discharge communication practice. Strengthening discharge communication in a pediatric emergency context presents a significant opportunity for improving parent comprehension and health outcomes for children. Systematic review registration: PROSPERO registration number: CRD42014007106.

Background: Shared decision-making (SDM) is rarely implemented in pediatric practice. Pediatric health decision-making differs from that of adult practice. Yet, little is known about the factors that influence the implementation of pediatric shared decision-making (SDM). We synthesized pediatric SDM barriers and facilitators from the perspectives of healthcare providers (HCP), parents, children, and observers (i.e., persons who evaluated the SDM process, but were not directly involved). Methods: We conducted a systematic review guided by the Ottawa Model of Research Use (OMRU). We searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, Cochrane Library, CINAHL, PubMed, and PsycINFO (inception to March 2017) and included studies that reported clinical pediatric SDM barriers and/or facilitators from the perspective of HCPs, parents, children, and/or observers. We considered all or no comparison groups and included all study designs reporting original data. Content analysis was used to synthesize barriers and facilitators and categorized them according to the OMRU levels (i.e., decision, innovation, adopters, relational, and environment) and participant types (i.e., HCP, parents, children, and observers). We used the Mixed Methods Appraisal Tool to appraise study quality. Results: Of 20,008 identified citations, 79 were included. At each OMRU level, the most frequent barriers were features of the options (decision), poor quality information (innovation), parent/child emotional state (adopter), power relations (relational), and insufficient time (environment). The most frequent facilitators were low stake decisions (decision), good quality information (innovation), agreement with SDM (adopter), trust and respect (relational), and SDM tools/resources (environment). Across participant types, the most frequent barriers were insufficient time (HCPs), features of the options (parents), power imbalances (children), and HCP skill for SDM (observers). The most frequent facilitators were good quality information (HCP) and agreement with SDM (parents and children). There was no consistent facilitator category for observers. Overall, study quality was moderate with quantitative studies having the highest ratings and mixed-method studies having the lowest ratings. Conclusions: Numerous diverse and interrelated factors influence SDM use in pediatric clinical practice. Our findings can be used to identify potential pediatric SDM barriers and facilitators, guide context-specific barrier and facilitator assessments, and inform interventions for implementing SDM in pediatric practice. Trial registration: PROSPERO CRD42015020527.