Coming Up Short: Risks of Bias in Assessing Psychological Outcomes in Growth Hormone Therapy for Short Stature.

What It Covers

The paper reports a study of Exogenous HGH, sermorelin & older GHRPs (why they're passed over), published as a systematic review.

No studies were rated as having a low risk of bias, the risk of bias was unclear in seven study outcome areas, and the remaining studies were judged as having a high risk of bias.

Who the Included Studies Covered

Electronic databases were searched for randomized clinical trials and nonrandomized studies, published between 1958-2014, in which GH was administered for management of children with SS and psychosocial, cognitive, academic, or health-related quality of life outcomes were assessed.

How the Review Was Done

Methodological quality of each study was assessed using the Cochrane Collaboration's tool for assessing risk of bias.

What Was Measured

No studies were rated as having a low risk of bias, the risk of bias was unclear in seven study outcome areas, and the remaining studies were judged as having a high risk of bias.

The subject headings attached to it are Body Height, Hormone Replacement Therapy, Human Growth Hormone, Quality of Life, Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic and Recombinant Proteins.

What This Means in Plain Language

This is a systematic review of Exogenous HGH, sermorelin & older GHRPs (why they're passed over).

Its findings take up roughly 2 sentences of the abstract and are left out here on purpose; the source paper is the place to read them.

The publication is from 2016 (The Journal of clinical endocrinology and metabolism), a journal based in United States.

More context: the Exogenous HGH, sermorelin & older GHRPs (why they're passed over) compound page, all human trials.