ArticleBMJ open2020
Systematic review protocol examining sex differences in survival among low birthweight newborns and infants in sub-Saharan Africa.
Article in BMJ open, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Gender differences in survival among low birthweight newborns and infants in sub-Saharan Africa: a systematic review.International health · 2022Pooled it
- Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionIn sub-Saharan African countries, low birthweight (LBW) accounts for three-quarters of under-five mortality and morbidity. However, there is no systematic evidence of sex differences in LBW survival risk. The aim of this protocol is to outline the methodological process of a systematic review that will gather qualitative and quantitative data on sex differences in survival among LBW newborns and infants in sub-Saharan Africa.
methodsThis protocol adheres to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis Protocols reporting guidelines. We will conduct a systematic review to retrieve all qualitative and quantitative studies. Electronic search strategies are being finalised on 24 February 2020 for Ovid Medline and EMBASE, and on 28 February 2020 for CINAHL, Scopus and Global Health in collaboration with a Health Sciences librarian. The primary outcome of interest is indicating sex differences in survival among LBW newborns and infants. Secondary outcomes are sex-disaggregated differences in morbidity among LBW newborns and infants. Screening, data extraction and assessments of risk of bias will be performed independently. Narrative synthesis and a meta-analysis will be conducted with studies that are compatible based on population and outcome. The systematic review is focused on the analysis of secondary data and does not require ethics approval. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: As it will be a systematic review, without human participants' involvement, there will be no requirement for ethical approval. The systematic review will present key evidence of sex-disaggregated differences in mortality and morbidity among LBW newborns and infants in sub-Saharan Africa. Programme managers, policy-makers and researchers can use the findings to evaluate LBW health outcomes in different sexes. The final manuscript will be disseminated through a peer-reviewed journal and scientific conferences. PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER: CRD42020163470.
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.