SynthesisPediatric research2026
A systematic scoping review and gap analysis of questionnaires to assess multimorbidity among children.
Synthesis in Pediatric research, 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
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Assessment tools specifically designed for children are crucial to addressing their unique healthcare needs, enabling more comprehensive and tailored care. This review intends to examine tools that assess multimorbidity in children to uncover critical gaps. This review followed PRISMA guidelines and is registered in PROSPERO (CRD42024520342). This review focused on tools/questionnaires/instruments that assess chronic diseases and multimorbidity among children aged 0-18 years. The search was performed from PubMed, Embase, Web of Science, and CINAHL databases. Eleven studies were included out of 11,876 records screened. The tools (CHQ, ISAAC, DAWBA, and MINI-KID) identified were initially created to assess one condition. They remain widely used in multimorbidity studies because of their validity and common usage, but re-purposing them can restrict full understanding of comorbidities. Other studies used or modified these tools to estimate multimorbidity constructs, with no specifically designed tool employed to estimate childhood multimorbidity. The risk of bias was generally moderate among cross-sectional studies and low among cohort studies. The existing child health questionnaires were not designed for assessing multimorbidity and vary widely in scope and focus. These findings underscore the urgent need for standardized, culturally acceptable, and pediatric-specific tools to assess multimorbidity. IMPACT: This review highlights critical gaps in pediatric multimorbidity assessment tools, emphasizing their limited scope, validity, and cultural adaptability. It analyzes existing methodologies, revealing inconsistencies in chronic condition coverage and a lack of validation across diverse populations. The study underscores the need for standardized, comprehensive tools to improve assessment accuracy and management. Findings suggest that developing multidimensional instruments will enhance precision and inform better healthcare strategies. Addressing these gaps is essential for equitable, evidence-based multimorbidity management in children, ultimately improving long-term health outcomes.
Identifiers
42098422What 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.