| Title |
Are child-centric aspects in newborn and child health systematic review and meta-analysis protocols and reports adequately reported?—two systematic reviews
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Systematic Reviews, March 2017
|
| DOI | 10.1186/s13643-017-0423-9 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Mufiza Farid-Kapadia, Kariym C. Joachim, Chrinna Balasingham, April Clyburne-Sherin, Martin Offringa |
| Abstract |
Evidence suggests that newborn and child health systematic reviews and meta-analyses exhibit poor quality in reporting. The "Preferred Reporting Items in Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis" (PRISMA) and PRISMA-Protocols (PRISMA-P) checklists have been developed to improve the reporting of systematic review results and protocols, respectively. We aimed to evaluate the clarity and transparency in reporting of child-centric items in child health systematic reviews (SRs) and SR protocols and to identify areas where reporting could be strengthened. Two preliminary lists of potential child-centric reporting items were used to examine current reporting. The Cochrane, DARE, MEDLINE, and EMBASE libraries were searched from 2010 to 2014 for systematic reviews that included children. Each report and protocol that met the inclusion criteria had their quality of reporting assessed by their reporting of child-centric items. Quality of reporting was assessed per whether one third, one to two thirds, or more than two thirds of papers complied with potential child-centric potential modifications/extensions to PRISMA and were analyzed by the following: (i) paper type (i.e., report vs. protocol), (ii) publication type (i.e., Cochrane vs. non-Cochrane), and (iii) population type (i.e., child-only vs. mixed populations vs. family/maternal). Of the 414 eligible articles, 248 reports and 76 protocols were included. In 21 of 24 potential SR reporting items and 13 of 14 potential SR protocol reporting items, less than two thirds of papers met the child-centric reporting item requirements. Mixed population studies displayed significantly poorer reporting in comparison to child-only and family/maternal intervention studies for 11 potential SR reporting items (p < 0.05) and five potential SR protocol items (p < 0.05). When comparing non-Cochrane to Cochrane reports and protocols, five items in both lists were found to perform significantly poorer in non-Cochrane reports (p < 0.05). Significant differences in reporting quality were found in three of 14 items shared between the potential SR reporting items and potential SR protocol reporting items (p < 0.05). Newborn and child health systematic reviews and meta-analyses exhibit incomplete reporting, thereby hindering prudent decision-making by healthcare providers and policy makers. These results provide a rationale for the implementation of child-centric extensions and modifications to current PRISMA and PRISMA-P, such as to improve reporting in this population. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 18 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Canada | 7 | 39% |
| United Kingdom | 4 | 22% |
| Ireland | 1 | 6% |
| Unknown | 6 | 33% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 13 | 72% |
| Scientists | 3 | 17% |
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 1 | 6% |
| Science communicators (journalists, bloggers, editors) | 1 | 6% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 22 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Australia | 1 | 5% |
| Unknown | 21 | 95% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 3 | 14% |
| Other | 2 | 9% |
| Student > Bachelor | 2 | 9% |
| Researcher | 2 | 9% |
| Student > Master | 2 | 9% |
| Other | 2 | 9% |
| Unknown | 9 | 41% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 6 | 27% |
| Business, Management and Accounting | 1 | 5% |
| Computer Science | 1 | 5% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 1 | 5% |
| Psychology | 1 | 5% |
| Other | 1 | 5% |
| Unknown | 11 | 50% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 18. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 10 April 2017.
All research outputs
#1,739,088
of 22,958,253 outputs
Outputs from Systematic Reviews
#282
of 2,005 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#36,321
of 311,212 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Systematic Reviews
#13
of 63 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,958,253 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 92nd percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 2,005 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 12.7. This one has done well, scoring higher than 85% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 311,212 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 88% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 63 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 79% of its contemporaries.