ArticleBMC pediatrics2010
A descriptive analysis of child-relevant systematic reviews in the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews.
Article in BMC pediatrics, 2010. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 15 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
15 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Quantifying bias in randomized controlled trials in child health: a meta-epidemiological study.PloS one · 2014Pooled it
- An automated 13.5 hour system for scalable diagnosis and acute management guidance for genetic diseases.Nature communications · 2022Article
- Reconsidering reviews: the role of scoping reviews in digital medicine and pediatrics.NPJ digital medicine · 2020Article
- Integrating trials into a whole-population cohort of children and parents: statement of intent (trials) for the Generation Victoria (GenV) cohort.BMC medical research methodology · 2020Review
- A descriptive analysis of non-Cochrane child-relevant systematic reviews published in 2014.BMC medical research methodology · 2018Article
- Descriptive analysis of cochrane child-relevant systematic reviews: an update and comparison between 2009 and 2013.BMC pediatrics · 2017Article
- Are child-centric aspects in newborn and child health systematic review and meta-analysis protocols and reports adequately reported?-two systematic reviews.Systematic reviews · 2017Article
- Do systematic reviews on pediatric topics need special methodological considerations?BMC pediatrics · 2017Article
- The contribution of databases to the results of systematic reviews: a cross-sectional study.BMC medical research methodology · 2016Article
- Bias due to selective inclusion and reporting of outcomes and analyses in systematic reviews of randomised trials of healthcare interventions.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2014Article
- Coverage of mental health and substance misuse topics in the Cochrane review system.Epidemiology and psychiatric sciences · 2013Review
- A descriptive analysis of oral health systematic reviews published 1991-2012: cross sectional study.PloS one · 2013Article
- The evaluation of an evidence-based clinical answer format for pediatricians.BMC pediatrics · 2012Article
- Characteristics of meta-analyses and their component studies in the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews: a cross-sectional, descriptive analysis.BMC medical research methodology · 2011Article
- The evidence base for interventions delivered to children in primary care: an overview of cochrane systematic reviews.PloS one · 2011Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundSystematic reviews (SRs) are considered an important tool for decision-making. There has been no recent comprehensive identification or description of child-relevant SRs. A description of existing child-relevant SRs would help to identify the extent of available child-relevant evidence available in SRs and gaps in the evidence base where SRs are required. The objective of this study was to describe child-relevant SRs from the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews (CDSR, Issue 2, 2009).
methodsSRs were assessed for relevance using pre-defined criteria. Data were extracted and entered into an electronic form. Univariate analyses were performed to describe the SRs overall and by topic area.
resultsThe search yielded 1666 SRs; 793 met the inclusion criteria. 38% of SRs were last assessed as up-to-date prior to 2007. Corresponding authors were most often from the UK (41%). Most SRs (59%) examined pharmacological interventions. 53% had at least one external source of funding. SRs included a median of 7 studies (IQR 3, 15) and 679 participants (IQR 179, 2833). Of all studies, 48% included only children, and 27% only adults. 94% of studies were published in peer-reviewed journals. Primary outcomes were specified in 72% of SRs. Allocation concealment and the Jadad scale were used in 97% and 25% of SRs, respectively. Adults and children were analyzed separately in 12% of SRs and as a subgroup analysis in 14%. Publication bias was assessed in only 14% of SRs. A meta-analysis was conducted in 68% of SRs with a median of 5 trials (IQR 3, 9) each. Variations in these characteristics were observed across topic areas.
conclusionsWe described the methodological characteristics and rigour of child-relevant reviews in the CDSR. Many SRs are not up-to-date according to Cochrane criteria. Our study describes variation in conduct and reporting across SRs and reveals clinicians' ability to access child-specific data.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.