ArticlePloS one2026
Methodological trends in biological assessment of children's daily stress: A scoping review.
Article in PloS one, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionChildhood stress can influence biological stress-response systems and may have long-term implications for development. Although biological measures are increasingly used to assess stress in children, research on biological assessments of daily stress among typically developing children has not yet been comprehensively synthesized across stress types and disciplines.
objectiveThis scoping review synthesizes research from the past 20 years on biological assessments of daily stress in typically developing children, distinguishing between chronic and acute stress and integrating evidence across medicine, psychology, and education.
methodsFollowing established scoping review frameworks, we searched PubMed, PsycArticles, and EBSCO Education Source for English-language observational and experimental studies from 2005 to 2025. Studies assessing daily stress using biological indicators in typically developing children were included. Review articles, case studies, pilot studies, and intervention studies were excluded. Data were charted on publication year, country, child age, stress type, data collection methods, biological indicators, and assessment context.
resultsFifty-seven studies met the inclusion criteria. Overall, the number of studies increased between 2005 and 2019, followed by a modest decline between 2020 and 2025. Acute stress studies were more prevalent than chronic stress studies. Chronic stress research most frequently involved preschool-aged children, whereas acute stress studies most frequently targeted upper elementary-aged children. Endocrine measures-particularly cortisol-were most frequently used, followed by autonomic nervous system measures, whereas brain- and immune-related markers remained limited. The use of repeated daily cortisol sampling increased markedly between 2015 and 2019, followed by a modest decline in 2020-2025, while remaining above levels observed in earlier periods.
conclusionThis review maps methodological trends in biological assessments of daily stress in typically developing children and identifies research gaps across stress types, age groups, biological indicators, and cortisol assessment practices. These findings can inform more comprehensive and methodologically robust approaches to understanding children's daily stress.
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.