Are child-centric aspects in newborn and child health systematic review and meta-analysis protocols and reports adequately reported?—two systematic reviews

Abstract

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).

Systems for rating bodies of evidence used in systematic reviews of air pollution exposure and reproductive and children’s health: a methodological survey

“…Also, calls for child-relevant extensions to the PRISMA checklist- “PRISMA-C” have been made [ 26 , 137 , 138 ], and are currently under development [ 139 ]. Specific recommendations regarding risk of bias and evidence assessments could be integrated herein.…”

Meta-Analyses Do Not Establish Improved Mortality With Ivermectin Use in COVID-19

“…52,53 The preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses for children (PRISMA-C) guidelines recommend separately reporting pediatric events with consideration of unique developmental aspects, metabolism, pharmacology & safety, result applicability to pediatric age groups, and performance of pediatric subgroup analyses, none of which was performed in this meta-analysis. 12,13,[54][55][56] Bryant et al combined adult and pediatric outcomes into the same summary findings without mentioning different ages within results, discussion, or conclusion. This might lead readers to interpret their meta-analysis as supporting a treatment in children, despite children comprising a small minority of total subjects.…”

Biometric Recognition of Infants using Fingerprint, Iris, and Ear Biometrics

“…To the authors' knowledge, there are no comprehensive publicly available guidelines for data collection in this context. Incomplete reporting of studies involving children is a known challenge across research fields, including the health sector, where reporting guidelines and protocols already exist [82]. Infancy researchers acknowledge that, while there is a high complexity when conducting research with children, there is a lack of transparency in the details, successes and failures of applied research processes [83].…”