Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33499809›Full record

ArticleBMC pediatrics2021

A scoping review of methods for assessment of sex differentials in early childhood mortality.

Janaína Calu Costa, Cesar G Victora

Abstract readScoping Review
In one paragraph

Article in BMC pediatrics, 2021. 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.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
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

2 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Derivation and assessment of a sex-specific fetal growth standard.The journal of maternal-fetal & neonatal medicine : the official journal of the European Association of Perinatal Medicine, the Federation of Asia and Oceania Perinatal Societies, the International Society of Perinatal Obstetricians · 2022
    Observational
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

2 authors.

Janaína Calu CostaInternational Center for Equity in Health, Postgraduate Program in Epidemiology, Federal University of Pelotas. Marechal Deodoro, 1160, 3rd floor, Pelotas, 96020-220, Brazil. jcosta@equidade.org.ORCID 0000-0002-7912-8685
Cesar G VictoraInternational Center for Equity in Health, Postgraduate Program in Epidemiology, Federal University of Pelotas. Marechal Deodoro, 1160, 3rd floor, Pelotas, 96020-220, Brazil.ORCID 0000-0002-2465-2180

Funding

Wellcome TrustWellcome Trust 101815/Z/13/Z
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundWhile assessment of sex differentials in child mortality is straightforward, their interpretation must consider that, in the absence of gender bias, boys are more likely to die than girls. The expected differences are also influenced by levels and causes of death. However, there is no standard approach for determining expected sex differences.

methodsWe performed a scoping review of studies on sex differentials in under-five mortality, using PubMed, Web of Science, and Scopus databases. Publication characteristics were described, and studies were grouped according to their methodology.

resultsFrom the 17,693 references initially retrieved we included 154 studies published since 1929. Indian, Bangladeshi, and Chinese populations were the focus of 44% of the works, and most studies addressed infant mortality. Fourteen publications were classified as reference studies, as these aimed to estimate expected sex differentials based upon the demographic experience of selected populations, either considered as gender-neutral or not. These studies used a variety of methods - from simple averages to sophisticated modeling - to define values against which observed estimates could be compared. The 21 comparative studies mostly used life tables from European populations as standard for expected values, but also relied on groups without assuming those values as expected, otherwise, just as comparison parameters. The remaining 119 studies were categorized as narrative and did not use reference values, being limited to reporting observed sex-specific estimates or used a variety of statistical models, and in general, did not account for mortality levels.

conclusionStudies aimed at identifying sex differentials in child mortality should consider overall mortality levels, and report on more than one age group. The comparison of results with one or more reference values, and the use of statistical testing, are strongly recommended. Time trends analyses will help understand changes in population characteristics and interpret findings from a historical perspective.

Indexed as

Child MortalitySexismChildChild, PreschoolFemaleHumansInfantInfant MortalityLife TablesMaleMortalitySex CharacteristicsEpidemiologyExcess female mortalityGender biasReviewUnder-five mortality

Identifiers

PMID33499809
PMCPMC7836200

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.