Evidence map›Paper›PMID 37018457›Full record

ArticleCampbell systematic reviews2020

Mega-map of systematic reviews and evidence and gap maps on the interventions to improve child well-being in low- and middle-income countries.

Ashrita Saran, Howard White, Kerry Albright, Jill Adona

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Campbell systematic reviews, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 16 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
16citing papers in PubMed
–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

16 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Review
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Prioritising Cochrane reviews to be updated with health equity focus.International journal for equity in health · 2023
    Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

4 authors.

Ashrita SaranCampbell South Asia Vasant Kunj Delhi India.
Howard WhiteCampbell Collaboration Vasant Kunj Delhi India.
Kerry AlbrightUNICEF Office of Research-Innocenti Florence Italy.
Jill AdonaPhilippines Institute of Development Studies Manila Philippines.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Background: Despite a considerable reduction in child mortality, nearly six million children under the age of five die each year. Millions more are poorly nourished and in many parts of the world, the quality of education remains poor. Children are at risk from multiple violations of their rights, including child labour, early marriage, and sexual exploitation. Research plays a crucial role in helping to close the remaining gaps in child well-being, yet the global evidence base for interventions to meet these challenges is mostly weak, scattered and often unusable by policymakers and practitioners. This mega-map encourages the generation and use of rigorous evidence on effective ways to improve child well-being for policy and programming. Objectives: The aim of this mega-map is to identify, map and provide an overview of the existing evidence synthesis on the interventions aimed at improving child well-being in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs). Methods: Campbell evidence and gap maps (EGMs) are based on a review of existing mapping standards (Saran & White, 2018) which drew in particular of the approach developed by 3ie (Snilstveit, Vojtkova, Bhavsar, & Gaarder, 2013). As defined in the Campbell EGM guidance paper; "Mega-map is a map of evidence synthesis, that is, systematic reviews, and does not include primary studies" (Campbell Collaboration, 2020). The mega-map on child well-being includes studies with participants aged 0-18 years, conducted in LMICs, and published from year 2000 onwards. The search followed strict inclusion criteria for interventions and outcomes in the domains of health, education, social work and welfare, social protection, environmental health, water supply and sanitation (WASH) and governance. Critical appraisal of included systematic reviews was conducted using "A Measurement Tool to Assess Systematic Reviews"-AMSTAR-2 rating scale (Shea, et al., 2017). Results: We identified 333 systematic reviews and 23 EGMs. The number of studies being published has increased year-on-year since 2000. However, the distribution of studies across World Bank regions, intervention and outcome categories are uneven. Most systematic reviews examine interventions pertaining to traditional areas of health and education. Systematic reviews in these traditional areas are also the most funded. There is limited evidence in social work and social protection. About 69% (231) of the reviews are assessed to be of low and medium quality. There are evidence gaps with respect to key vulnerable populations, including children with disabilities and those who belong to minority groups. Conclusion: Although an increasing number of systematic reviews addressing child well-being topics are being published, some clear gaps in the evidence remain in terms of quality of reviews and some interventions and outcome areas. The clear gap is the small number of reviews focusing explicitly on either equity or programmes for disadvantaged groups and those who are discriminated against.

Identifiers

PMID37018457
PMCPMC8356294

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.