ReviewActa paediatrica (Oslo, Norway : 1992)2026
Identification and Assessment of Systematic Reviews for Evidence-Based Guideline Recommendations on Follow-Up of Preterm Born Children: A Mapping Review.
Review in Acta paediatrica (Oslo, Norway : 1992), 2026. 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
6 authors.
Funding
Abstract
aimThis mapping review presents a systematic approach identifying aggregated evidence and assessing methodological quality.
methodsMEDLINE (via Ovid), Epistemonikos and the Cochrane database were searched for systematic reviews, with or without meta-analyses, published from 2010 to May 6, 2025, addressing any interventions, prognosis, risks, incidence, prevalence, or diagnosis in preterm or very low birth weight children. To ensure quality, we included only those that searched at least two databases, assessed risk of bias, and defined a clear research question according to the PICO framework. Systematic reviews of interventions were assessed for methodological quality using AMSTAR 2. Those on risks, prognosis, prevalence, diagnostics, and qualitative research were assessed with ROBIS following a preliminary quality screening.
resultsOf 8000 references, 643 full texts were assessed, 239 systematic reviews met inclusion criteria: 42 interventional, 183 prognosis, risks, incidence and prevalence, 11 diagnostic, and 3 qualitative. Among interventional systematic reviews, seven showed high- or moderate-quality. Out of 197 systematic reviews, preliminary quality screening excluded 192 systematic reviews; ROBIS identified two high-quality prognosis and risk reviews out of five.
conclusionQuality of data on post discharge follow-up in preterm-born children is poor. Preliminary screening improves efficiency by limiting assessment time spent on low-quality reviews.
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.