52
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
0 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found
      Is Open Access

      PRISMA-Children (C) and PRISMA-Protocol for Children (P-C) Extensions: a study protocol for the development of guidelines for the conduct and reporting of systematic reviews and meta-analyses of newborn and child health research

      protocol

      Read this article at

      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Abstract

          Introduction

          Paediatric systematic reviews differ from adult systematic reviews in several key aspects such as considerations of child tailored interventions, justifiable comparators, valid outcomes and child sensitive search strategies. Available guidelines, including PRISMA-P (2015) and PRISMA (2009), do not cover all the complexities associated with reporting systematic reviews in the paediatric population. Using a collaborative, multidisciplinary structure, we aim to develop evidence-based and consensus-based PRISMA-P-C (Protocol for Children) and PRISMA-C (Children) Extensions to guide paediatric systematic review protocol and completed review reporting.

          Methods and analysis

          This project's methodology follows published recommendations for developing reporting guidelines and involves the following six phases; (1) establishment of a steering committee representing key stakeholder groups; (2) a scoping review to identify potential Extension items; (3) three types of consensus activities including meetings of the steering committee to achieve high-level decisions on the content and methodology of the Extensions, a survey of key stakeholders to generate a list of possible items to include in the Extensions and a formal consensus meeting to select the reporting items to add to, or modify for, the Extension; (4) the preliminary checklist items generated in phase III will be evaluated against the existing evidence and reporting practices in paediatric systematic reviews; (5) extension statements and explanation and elaboration documents will provide detailed advice for each item and examples of good reporting; (6) development and implementation of effective knowledge translation of the extension checklist, and an evaluation of the Extensions by key stakeholders.

          Ethics and Dissemination

          This protocol was considered a quality improvement project by the Hospital for Sick Children's Ethics Committee and did not require ethical review. The resultant checklists, jointly developed with all relevant stakeholders, will be disseminated through peer-reviewed journals as well as national and international conference presentations. Endorsement of the checklist will be sought simultaneously in multiple journals.

          Related collections

          Most cited references17

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: found
          • Article: not found

          Better reporting of interventions: template for intervention description and replication (TIDieR) checklist and guide.

          Without a complete published description of interventions, clinicians and patients cannot reliably implement interventions that are shown to be useful, and other researchers cannot replicate or build on research findings. The quality of description of interventions in publications, however, is remarkably poor. To improve the completeness of reporting, and ultimately the replicability, of interventions, an international group of experts and stakeholders developed the Template for Intervention Description and Replication (TIDieR) checklist and guide. The process involved a literature review for relevant checklists and research, a Delphi survey of an international panel of experts to guide item selection, and a face to face panel meeting. The resultant 12 item TIDieR checklist (brief name, why, what (materials), what (procedure), who provided, how, where, when and how much, tailoring, modifications, how well (planned), how well (actual)) is an extension of the CONSORT 2010 statement (item 5) and the SPIRIT 2013 statement (item 11). While the emphasis of the checklist is on trials, the guidance is intended to apply across all evaluative study designs. This paper presents the TIDieR checklist and guide, with an explanation and elaboration for each item, and examples of good reporting. The TIDieR checklist and guide should improve the reporting of interventions and make it easier for authors to structure accounts of their interventions, reviewers and editors to assess the descriptions, and readers to use the information.
            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: found
            • Article: not found

            Meta-analyses of randomized controlled trials.

            A new type of research, termed meta-analysis, attempts to analyze and combine the results of previous reports. We found 86 meta-analyses of reports of randomized controlled trials in the English-language literature. We evaluated the quality of these meta-analyses, using a scoring method that considered 23 items in six major areas--study design, combinability, control of bias, statistical analysis, sensitivity analysis, and application of results. Only 24 meta-analyses (28 percent) addressed all six areas, 31 (36 percent) addressed five, 25 (29 percent) addressed four, 5 (6 percent) addressed three, and 1 (1 percent) addressed two. Of the 23 individual items, between 1 and 14 were addressed satisfactorily (mean +/- SD, 7.7 +/- 2.7). We conclude that an urgent need exists for improved methods in literature searching, quality evaluation of trials, and synthesizing of the results.
              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: not found

              Reference Ranges of Left Ventricular Strain Measures by Two-Dimensional Speckle-Tracking Echocardiography in Children: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

              Establishment of the range of reference values and associated variations of two-dimensional speckle-tracking echocardiography (2DSTE)-derived left ventricular (LV) strain is a prerequisite for its routine clinical adoption in pediatrics. The aims of this study were to perform a meta-analysis of normal ranges of LV global longitudinal strain (GLS), global circumferential strain (GCS), and global radial strain (GRS) measurements derived by 2DSTE in children and to identify confounding factors that may contribute to variance in reported measures.
                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Journal
                BMJ Open
                BMJ Open
                bmjopen
                bmjopen
                BMJ Open
                BMJ Publishing Group (BMA House, Tavistock Square, London, WC1H 9JR )
                2044-6055
                2016
                18 April 2016
                : 6
                : 4
                : e010270
                Affiliations
                [1 ]Department of Child Health Evaluative Sciences, Research Institute, The Hospital for Sick Children, University of Toronto , Toronto, Ontario, Canada
                [2 ]Systematic Reviews & Health Technology Assessment, NHMRC Clinical Trials Centre, the University of Sydney , Sydney, New South Wales, Australia
                [3 ]Department of Pediatrics, Alberta Research Centre for Health Evidence, University of Alberta , Edmonton, Alberta, Canada
                [4 ]Department of Pediatrics, Division of Infectious Diseases, Stanford University School of Medicine, and Meta Research Innovation Center at Stanford (METRICS) , Stanford, California, USA
                [5 ]Department of Pediatrics, University of Vermont College of Medicine; Vermont Oxford Network , Burlington, Vermont, USA
                [6 ]Centres for Practice-Changing Research, Ottawa Hospital Research Institute , Ottawa, Ontario, Canada
                Author notes
                [Correspondence to ] Dr Mufiza Z Kapadia; Mufiza.farid@ 123456gmail.com
                Article
                bmjopen-2015-010270
                10.1136/bmjopen-2015-010270
                4838710
                27091820
                fc168b34-216c-4d9e-b527-a8a369becc92
                Published by the BMJ Publishing Group Limited. For permission to use (where not already granted under a licence) please go to http://www.bmj.com/company/products-services/rights-and-licensing/

                This is an Open Access article distributed in accordance with the Creative Commons Attribution Non Commercial (CC BY-NC 4.0) license, which permits others to distribute, remix, adapt, build upon this work non-commercially, and license their derivative works on different terms, provided the original work is properly cited and the use is non-commercial. See: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/

                History
                : 16 October 2015
                : 15 March 2016
                : 22 March 2016
                Categories
                Paediatrics
                Protocol
                1506
                1719
                1730
                1694

                Medicine
                systematic review,reporting guideline,pediatric
                Medicine
                systematic review, reporting guideline, pediatric

                Comments

                Comment on this article