ArticleSystematic reviews2025
Digital psychosocial follow-up for survivors of childhood critical illness: protocol for a systematic literature review.
Article in Systematic reviews, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundSurvivors of childhood critical illness face a higher risk of long-term psychological and social challenges. Digital solutions have the potential to mitigate these issues. Thus, the objective of this systematic literature review is to examine a range of existing digital solutions for psychosocial follow-up for children who have survived a critical illness. The research questions are structured using the Population, Intervention, Comparison, and Outcome (PICO) model.
methodsA five-stage iterative process for systematic literature review in software engineering guided by Kitchenham will be used. The reporting of the review will adhere to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines. The abstract and indexing database Scopus will be employed using a search strategy based on the PICO model. The automatic search will be supplemented by backward citation searching. The data will be managed using the EndNote software, with records selected according to eligibility criteria based on the PICO and Study design framework. This framework will also guide the data extraction process. All included studies will be assessed for risk of bias using the Mixed Methods Appraisal Tool (MMAT) and synthesized using Braun and Clarke's six-phase thematic analysis framework for qualitative data and meta-analysis for quantitative data when possible. For the meta-analysis, the effect measures will be calculated using forest plots based on the DerSimonian and Laird method. Heterogeneity will be explored through meta-regression, and the robustness of the meta-analysis results will be assessed using sensitivity analysis. The risk of bias due to missing results in the synthesis will be assessed using funnel plots. The Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) approach will be used to evaluate the certainty of the evidence provided by the review. DISCUSSION: This review will provide insights into the existing digital psychosocial follow-up solutions for survivors of childhood critical illness, potentially leading to enhanced solutions and improved quality of life for this group. SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION: PROSPERO CRD42022364703.
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.