Purpose of Review This paper reviews the empirical literature on exposures to disaster or terrorism and their impacts on the health and well-being of children with disabilities and their families since the last published update in 2017. We also review the literature on studies examining the mental health and functioning of children with disabilities during the COVID-19 pandemic. Recent Findings Few studies have examined the effects of disaster or terrorism on children with disabilities. Research shows that children with disabilities and their families have higher levels of disaster exposure, lower levels of disaster preparedness, and less recovery support due to longstanding discriminatory practices. Similarly, many reports of the COVID-19 pandemic have documented its negative and disproportionate impacts on children with disabilities and their families. Summary In the setting of climate change, environmental disasters are expected to increase in frequency and severity. Future studies identifying mitigating factors to disasters, including COVID-19; increasing preparedness on an individual, community, and global level; and evaluating post-disaster trauma-informed treatment practices are imperative to support the health and well-being of children with disabilities and their families.

ObjectiveEvaluate the quality of exercise randomised controlled trial (RCT) reporting and conduct in clinical populations (ie, adults with or at risk of chronic conditions) and compare with matched pharmacological RCTs.DesignSystematic review.Data sourcesEmbase (Elsevier), PubMed (NLM) and CINAHL (EBSCO).Study selectionRCTs of exercise in clinical populations with matching pharmacological RCTs published in leading clinical, medical and specialist journals with impact factors ≥15.Review methodsOverall RCT quality was evaluated by two independent reviewers using three research reporting guidelines (ie, Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials (CONSORT; pharmacological RCTs)/CONSORT for non-pharmacological treatments; exercise RCTs), CONSORT-Harms, Template for Intervention Description and Replication) and two risk of bias assessment (research conduct) tools (ie, Cochrane Risk of Bias, Jadad Scale). We compared research reporting and conduct quality within exercise RCTs with matched pharmacological RCTs, and examined factors associated with quality in exercise and pharmacological RCTs, separately.FindingsForty-eight exercise RCTs (11 658 patients; median sample n=138) and 48 matched pharmacological RCTs were evaluated (18 501 patients; median sample n=160). RCTs were conducted primarily in cardiovascular medicine (43%) or oncology (31%). Overall quality score (composite of all research reporting and conduct quality scores; primary endpoint) for exercise RCTs was 58% (median score 46 of 80; IQR: 39–51) compared with 77% (53 of 68; IQR: 47–58) in the matched pharmacological RCTs (p≤0.001). Individual quality scores for trial reporting and conduct were lower in exercise RCTs compared with matched pharmacological RCTs (p≤0.03). Factors associated with higher overall quality scores for exercise RCTs were journal impact factor (≥25), sample size (≥152) and publication year (≥2013).Conclusions and relevanceResearch reporting and conduct quality within exercise RCTs is inferior to matched pharmacological RCTs. Suboptimal RCT reporting and conduct impact the fidelity, interpretation, and reproducibility of exercise trials and, ultimately, implementation of exercise in clinical populations.PROSPERO registration numberCRD42018095033.