Evidence map›Paper›PMID 28260530›Full record

ArticleBMC pediatrics2017

Do systematic reviews on pediatric topics need special methodological considerations?

Mufiza Farid-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 BMC pediatrics, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 11 papers, 4 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
11citing papers in PubMed, 4 pooled it
0.7field-weighted citation impact, top 26% 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

11 citing papers in PubMed, 4 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 17 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Moving toward the Development and Effective Implementation of High-Quality Guidelines in Pediatric Surgery: A Review of the Literature.European journal of pediatric surgery : official journal of Austrian Association of Pediatric Surgery ... [et al] = Zeitschrift fur Kinderchirurgie · 2024
    Review
  8. Review
  9. Review
  10. Review
  11. 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 Farid-KapadiaChild Health Evaluative Sciences, Research Institute, The Hospital for Sick Children, University of Toronto, 555 University Avenue, Toronto, ON, M5G 1X8, Canada.
Lisa AskieSystematic Reviews & Health Technology Assessment, NHMRC Clinical Trials Centre, The University of Sydney, Sydney, Australia.
Lisa HartlingAlberta Research Centre for Health Evidence, Department of Pediatrics, University of Alberta, Edmonton, Canada.
Despina Contopoulos-IoannidisDepartment of Pediatrics, Division of Infectious Diseases Stanford University School of Medicine, Stanford, USA and Meta-Research Innovation Center at Stanford (METRICS), Stanford, USA.
Zulfiqar A BhuttaChild Health Evaluative Sciences, Research Institute, The Hospital for Sick Children, University of Toronto, 555 University Avenue, Toronto, ON, M5G 1X8, Canada.
Roger SollUniversity of Vermont College of Medicine and Cochrane Neonatal Review Group, Burlington, USA.
David MoherCentres for Practice-Changing Research, Ottawa Hospital Research Institute, Ottawa, Canada.
Martin OffringaChild Health Evaluative Sciences, Research Institute, The Hospital for Sick Children, University of Toronto, 555 University Avenue, Toronto, ON, M5G 1X8, Canada. martin.offringa@sickkids.ca.
Institute for Clinical Evaluative Sciences · CANational Health and Medical Research Council · AUOttawa Hospital Research InstituteStanford University · USUniversity of Alberta · CAUniversity of Toronto · CAUniversity of Vermont · US

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundSystematic reviews are key tools to enable decision making by healthcare providers and policymakers. Despite the availability of the evidence based Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analysis (PRISMA-2009 and PRISMA-P 2015) statements that were developed to improve the transparency and quality of reporting of systematic reviews, uncertainty on how to deal with pediatric-specific methodological challenges of systematic reviews impairs decision-making in child health. In this paper, we identify methodological challenges specific to the design, conduct and reporting of pediatric systematic reviews, and propose a process to address these challenges. DISCUSSION: One fundamental decision at the outset of a systematic review is whether to focus on a pediatric population only, or to include both adult and pediatric populations. Both from the policy and patient care point of view, the appropriateness of interventions and comparators administered to pre-defined pediatric age subgroup is critical. Decisions need to be based on the biological plausibility of differences in treatment effects across the developmental trajectory in children. Synthesis of evidence from different trials is often impaired by the use of outcomes and measurement instruments that differ between trials and are neither relevant nor validated in the pediatric population. Other issues specific to pediatric systematic reviews include lack of pediatric-sensitive search strategies and inconsistent choices of pediatric age subgroups in meta-analyses. In addition to these methodological issues generic to all pediatric systematic reviews, special considerations are required for reviews of health care interventions' safety and efficacy in neonatology, global health, comparative effectiveness interventions and individual participant data meta-analyses. To date, there is no standard approach available to overcome this problem. We propose to develop a consensus-based checklist of essential items which researchers should consider when they are planning (PRISMA-PC-Protocol for Children) or reporting (PRISMA-C-reporting for Children) a pediatric systematic review. Available guidelines including PRISMA do not cover the complexity associated with the conduct and reporting of systematic reviews in the pediatric population; they require additional and modified standards for reporting items. Such guidance will facilitate the translation of knowledge from the literature to bedside care and policy, thereby enhancing delivery of care and improving child health outcomes.

Indexed as

PediatricsResearch DesignReview Literature as TopicAdolescentChildChild, PreschoolGuidelines as TopicHumansInfantInfant, NewbornMethodsPediatricsReporting guidelineSystematic reviews

Identifiers

PMID28260530
PMCPMC5338083
OpenAlexW2591389618

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.