CONTEXT: Uncertainty exists about the impacts of feeding tubes on neurologically impaired children. Core outcome sets (COS) standardize outcome selection, definition, measurement, and reporting. OBJECTIVE:To synthesize an evidence base of qualitative data on all outcomes selected and/ or reported for neurologically impaired children 0 to 18 years living with gastrostomy/ gastrojejunostomy tubes. DATA EXTRACTION: Outcomes were extracted and assigned to modified Outcome Measures in Rheumatology 2.0 Filter core areas; death, life impact, resource use, pathophysiological manifestations, growth and development. RESULTS:We identified 120 unique outcomes with substantial heterogeneity in definition, measurement, and frequency of selection and/or reporting: "pathophysiological manifestation" outcomes (n = 83) in 79% of articles; "growth and development" outcomes (n = 13) in 55% of articles; "death" outcomes (n = 3) and "life impact" outcomes (n = 17) in 39% and 37% of articles, respectively; "resource use" outcomes (n = 4) in 14%. Weight (50%), gastroesophageal reflux (35%), and site infection (25%) were the most frequently reported outcomes. LIMITATIONS:We were unable to investigate effect size of outcomes because quantitative data were not collected. CONCLUSIONS:The paucity of outcomes assessed for life impact, resource use and death hinders meaningful evidence synthesis. A COS could help overcome the current wide heterogeneity in selection and definition. These results will form the basis of a consensus process to produce a final COS.

Background: Evidence suggests that newborn and child health systematic reviews and meta-analyses exhibit poor quality in reporting. The "Preferred Reporting Items in Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis" (PRISMA) and PRISMAProtocols (PRISMA-P) checklists have been developed to improve the reporting of systematic review results and protocols, respectively. We aimed to evaluate the clarity and transparency in reporting of child-centric items in child health systematic reviews (SRs) and SR protocols and to identify areas where reporting could be strengthened. Methods: Two preliminary lists of potential child-centric reporting items were used to examine current reporting. The Cochrane, DARE, MEDLINE, and EMBASE libraries were searched from 2010 to 2014 for systematic reviews that included children. Each report and protocol that met the inclusion criteria had their quality of reporting assessed by their reporting of child-centric items. Quality of reporting was assessed per whether one third, one to two thirds, or more than two thirds of papers complied with potential child-centric potential modifications/extensions to PRISMA and were analyzed by the following: (i) paper type (i.e., report vs. protocol), (ii) publication type (i.e., Cochrane vs. non-Cochrane), and (iii) population type (i.e., child-only vs. mixed populations vs. family/maternal).