Skip to main content

Table 4 Comparison of overall reporting quality of newborn and child health systematic review (SR) reports vs. protocols

From: Are child-centric aspects in newborn and child health systematic review and meta-analysis protocols and reports adequately reported?—two systematic reviews

  Proportion (%) of “Yes” responses for the total (no.) of reviews eligible for scoring
Itema number Item SR reports (N = 248) SR protocols (N = 76) p value
1/1a) Identify the report as a systematic review, meta-analysis, or both for pediatric population as a focus of review, if applicable 62.1 (248) 72.4 (76) 0.102
5/6) Describe the rationale for the review in the context of what is already known
 In the contexts of the synthesized evidence in adults or other pediatric groups (non-targeted), explain the rationale for synthesizing evidence for the targeted pediatric age group(s). Provide hypotheses that relate to the targeted pediatric age group(s) 3.6 (248) 1.3 (76) 0.309
4/7) Provide an explicit statement of questions being addressed with reference to targeted pediatric age groups, interventions, comparisons, outcomes, and study design (PICOS) 0.8 (248) 0 (76) 0.433
  Eligibility criteria
6/8) Specify study characteristics (e.g., PICOS, length of follow-up) and report characteristics (e.g., years considered, language, publication status) used as criteria for eligibility, giving rationale
6a/8a) Justify the targeted pediatric age group(s) selected 74.2 (248) 64.5 (76) 0.1
6b/8b) Intervention: Justify the intervention for the targeted pediatric age group(s) addressing potential age-related differences in intervention effects 67.7 (248) 55.3 (76) 0.047*
6c/8c) Provide rationale for extrapolation or adaptation of adult intervention, if any 29.6 (27) 16.7 (18) 0.331
6d/8d) Comparators: Explain the choice of comparator(s) and, if applicable, evidence for the active comparator and/or standard of care for targeted pediatric age group(s) 9.7 (248) 17.1 (76) 0.076
6e/8e) Outcomes: List and define all the primary outcomes addressed for the targeted pediatric age group(s). List and define growth and development outcomes, adverse outcomes (events), if applicable 41.1 (248) 55.3 (76) 0.031*
6f/8f) Outcomes: Explain the clinical relevance of the selected outcomes (benefits and harms) for the targeted pediatric age group(s) 34.3 (248) 28.9 (76) 0.388
6g/8g) Outcomes: Explain the validity, feasibility and responsiveness of the outcome measures for the pre-targeted pediatric age group(s) 0 (248) 0 (76) p > 0.999
8/10) Present full electronic search strategy for at least one database, including any limits used, such that it could be repeated    
8a/10a) Describe the search strategy and terms (including database specific MeSH terms for pediatric population) used to address the targeted pediatric age group(s) 44 (248) 48.7 (76) 0.469
  Synthesis of results
14/15b) Describe the methods of handling data and combining results of studies, if done, including measures of consistency (e.g., I2) for each meta-analysis    
14a/15b) For studies that included pediatrics and adults without a subgroup analysis of the pediatric population, describe how the data on targeted pediatric age group(s) were used in the analysis 0 (89) 0 (27) p > 0.999
  Additional analyses
16/15c) Describe methods of additional analyses (e.g., sensitivity or subgroup analyses for targeted pediatric age group(s), meta-regression), if done, indicating which were pre-specified 54.9 (142) 61 (59) 0.429
27/5) Describe sources of funding for the systematic review and other support (e.g., supply of data) and role of funders for the systematic review
27a/5a) For each included trial in a systematic review, indicate (a plan to include) the source of financial support (such as Government, Academia or Industry), if any, in the trial(s) 5.6 (248) 13.2 (76) 0.03*
  1. *p-value correspondent to statistical significant at < 0.05
  2. aItem numbers are potential neonatal and child health modification (bold) and extension (a–g) items for PRISMA-C/PC