Evidence map›Paper›PMID 27091820›Full record

ArticleBMJ open2016

PRISMA-Children (C) and PRISMA-Protocol for Children (P-C) Extensions: a study protocol for the development of guidelines for the conduct and reporting of systematic reviews and meta-analyses of newborn and child health research.

Mufiza Z Kapadia, Lisa Askie, Lisa Hartling, Despina Contopoulos-Ioannidis, Zulfiqar A Bhutta, Roger Soll, David Moher, Martin Offringa

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in BMJ open, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 12 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
12citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
2.4field-weighted citation impact, top 10% of its field
1 · What the graph read from 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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

12 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 34 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Review
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

8 authors at 7 institutions in 3 countries.

Mufiza Z KapadiaDepartment of Child Health Evaluative Sciences, Research Institute, The Hospital for Sick Children, University of Toronto, Toronto, Ontario, Canada.
Lisa AskieSystematic Reviews & Health Technology Assessment, NHMRC Clinical Trials Centre, the University of Sydney, Sydney, New South Wales, Australia.
Lisa HartlingDepartment of Pediatrics, Alberta Research Centre for Health Evidence, University of Alberta, Edmonton, Alberta, Canada.
Despina Contopoulos-IoannidisDepartment of Pediatrics, Division of Infectious Diseases, Stanford University School of Medicine, and Meta Research Innovation Center at Stanford (METRICS), Stanford, California, USA.
Zulfiqar A BhuttaDepartment of Child Health Evaluative Sciences, Research Institute, The Hospital for Sick Children, University of Toronto, Toronto, Ontario, Canada.
Roger SollDepartment of Pediatrics, University of Vermont College of Medicine; Vermont Oxford Network, Burlington, Vermont, USA.
David MoherCentres for Practice-Changing Research, Ottawa Hospital Research Institute, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada.
Martin OffringaDepartment of Child Health Evaluative Sciences, Research Institute, The Hospital for Sick Children, University of Toronto, Toronto, Ontario, Canada.
University of Toronto · CAOttawa Hospital Research InstituteSickKids Foundation · CAStanford University · USUniversity of Alberta · CAUniversity of Sydney · AUVermont Oxford Network · US

Funding

Canadian Institutes of Health Research 345296
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

introductionPaediatric systematic reviews differ from adult systematic reviews in several key aspects such as considerations of child tailored interventions, justifiable comparators, valid outcomes and child sensitive search strategies. Available guidelines, including PRISMA-P (2015) and PRISMA (2009), do not cover all the complexities associated with reporting systematic reviews in the paediatric population. Using a collaborative, multidisciplinary structure, we aim to develop evidence-based and consensus-based PRISMA-P-C (Protocol for Children) and PRISMA-C (Children) Extensions to guide paediatric systematic review protocol and completed review reporting. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: This project's methodology follows published recommendations for developing reporting guidelines and involves the following six phases; (1) establishment of a steering committee representing key stakeholder groups; (2) a scoping review to identify potential Extension items; (3) three types of consensus activities including meetings of the steering committee to achieve high-level decisions on the content and methodology of the Extensions, a survey of key stakeholders to generate a list of possible items to include in the Extensions and a formal consensus meeting to select the reporting items to add to, or modify for, the Extension; (4) the preliminary checklist items generated in phase III will be evaluated against the existing evidence and reporting practices in paediatric systematic reviews; (5) extension statements and explanation and elaboration documents will provide detailed advice for each item and examples of good reporting; (6) development and implementation of effective knowledge translation of the extension checklist, and an evaluation of the Extensions by key stakeholders. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: This protocol was considered a quality improvement project by the Hospital for Sick Children's Ethics Committee and did not require ethical review. The resultant checklists, jointly developed with all relevant stakeholders, will be disseminated through peer-reviewed journals as well as national and international conference presentations. Endorsement of the checklist will be sought simultaneously in multiple journals.

Indexed as

Child HealthGuidelines as TopicMeta-Analysis as TopicResearch DesignSystematic Reviews as TopicChildConsensusHealth Services ResearchHumansInfant, Newbornpediatricreporting guidelinesystematic review

Identifiers

PMID27091820
PMCPMC4838710
OpenAlexW2339630516

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.