ArticleBMJ paediatrics open2026
Shared principles, local practice: an international survey of child death review systems.
Article in BMJ paediatrics open, 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
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveChild death review (CDR) is the multiprofessional review of child deaths aiming to identify causes, risk factors and learning, with the aim of improving services and preventing future deaths.The objective of this study was to determine the range of current CDR practice internationally.
designThis study used a descriptive comparative survey design to determine similarities and differences between CDR practices in different countries. A secure online questionnaire was developed by the CDR working group of the International Society for the Study and Prevention of Perinatal and Infant Death and distributed via international professional networks.
settingProfessionals working in CDR in any country globally, contacted via email.
participants27 professionals from 19 different countries participated in the study. To ensure data consistency, duplicate responses from the same region within countries were combined. A total of 20 responses from regions within 13 different countries were included. OUTCOMES: Key measures included legal status of CDR systems, family involvement in CDR, legal protection for professionals, multidisciplinary team structure and CDR inclusion criteria.
resultsCDR was identified in 13 countries; 5 describing national CDR programmes and 8 with regional programmes. The aim of all CDR programmes was to prevent future deaths. Laws mandating CDR existed in 15 regions or countries; areas without legislative support reported challenges in conducting CDR. Parental involvement in CDR varied considerably between regions: six required parental consent for reviews, while nine did not inform parents about reviews. In 10 regions, all child deaths regardless of cause were included in CDR, while other programmes reviewed only selected deaths. In seven regions, professionals were provided with legal protection from malpractice claims to enable participation in the CDR.
conclusionsCommon principles underpin effective CDR, providing a foundation for locally adapted approaches to improve systems and prevent future deaths.
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.