Skip to main content
Key Specialties
Cardiology Diabetology Endocrinology Gastroenterology Geriatrics and Gerontology Gynecology and Obstetrics Hematology Infectious Disease Internal Medicine Nephrology Neurology Oncology Pediatrics Respiratory Medicine Rheumatology Surgery
Congress Coverage
2024 ACC Congress 2023 ESMO Congress 2023 EASD Congress 2023 ERS Congress 2023 ESC Congress 2023 EHA Congress 2023 ASCO Annual Meeting
Clinical Collections
Advances in Alzheimer’s

ACC 2024 Congress

Catch up on all the top stories and latest evidence in cardiology research with our ACC 2024 Congress hub page.
ADVANCED SEARCH
Log in
Top
BMC Pediatrics
Published in: BMC Pediatrics 1/2017

Open Access 01-12-2017 | Debate

Do systematic reviews on pediatric topics need special methodological considerations?

Authors: Mufiza Farid-Kapadia, Lisa Askie, Lisa Hartling, Despina Contopoulos-Ioannidis, Zulfiqar A. Bhutta, Roger Soll, David Moher, Martin Offringa

Published in: BMC Pediatrics | Issue 1/2017

Login to get access

Abstract

Background

Systematic reviews are key tools to enable decision making by healthcare providers and policymakers. Despite the availability of the evidence based Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analysis (PRISMA-2009 and PRISMA-P 2015) statements that were developed to improve the transparency and quality of reporting of systematic reviews, uncertainty on how to deal with pediatric-specific methodological challenges of systematic reviews impairs decision-making in child health. In this paper, we identify methodological challenges specific to the design, conduct and reporting of pediatric systematic reviews, and propose a process to address these challenges.

Discussion

One fundamental decision at the outset of a systematic review is whether to focus on a pediatric population only, or to include both adult and pediatric populations. Both from the policy and patient care point of view, the appropriateness of interventions and comparators administered to pre-defined pediatric age subgroup is critical. Decisions need to be based on the biological plausibility of differences in treatment effects across the developmental trajectory in children. Synthesis of evidence from different trials is often impaired by the use of outcomes and measurement instruments that differ between trials and are neither relevant nor validated in the pediatric population. Other issues specific to pediatric systematic reviews include lack of pediatric-sensitive search strategies and inconsistent choices of pediatric age subgroups in meta-analyses. In addition to these methodological issues generic to all pediatric systematic reviews, special considerations are required for reviews of health care interventions’ safety and efficacy in neonatology, global health, comparative effectiveness interventions and individual participant data meta-analyses. To date, there is no standard approach available to overcome this problem. We propose to develop a consensus-based checklist of essential items which researchers should consider when they are planning (PRISMA-PC-Protocol for Children) or reporting (PRISMA-C-reporting for Children) a pediatric systematic review.

Summary

Available guidelines including PRISMA do not cover the complexity associated with the conduct and reporting of systematic reviews in the pediatric population; they require additional and modified standards for reporting items. Such guidance will facilitate the translation of knowledge from the literature to bedside care and policy, thereby enhancing delivery of care and improving child health outcomes.
Literature
1.
2.
Martinez-Castaldi C, Silverstein M, Bauchner H. Child versus adult research: the gap in high-quality study design. Pediatrics. 2008;122(1):52–7.CrossRefPubMed
3.
Contopoulos-Ioannidis DG, Baltogianni MS, Ioannidis JP. Comparative effectiveness of medical interventions in adults versus children. J Pediatr. 2010;157(2):322–30. e17.CrossRefPubMed
4.
Lathyris D, et al. Safety of medical interventions in children versus adults. Pediatrics. 2014;133(3):e666–73.CrossRefPubMed
5.
6.
Polkki T, et al. The methodological quality of systematic reviews published in high-impact nursing journals: a review of the literature. J Clin Nurs. 2014;23(3-4):315–32.CrossRefPubMed
7.
Gagnier JJ, Kellam PJ. Reporting and methodological quality of systematic reviews in the orthopaedic literature. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2013;95(11):e771–7.CrossRefPubMed
8.
9.
Tunis AS, et al. Association of study quality with completeness of reporting: have completeness of reporting and quality of systematic reviews and meta-analyses in major radiology journals changed since publication of the PRISMA statement? Radiology. 2013;269(2):413–26.CrossRefPubMed
10.
Panic N, et al. Evaluation of the endorsement of the preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analysis (PRISMA) statement on the quality of published systematic review and meta-analyses. PLoS One. 2013;8(12):e83138.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
11.
12.
13.
14.
15.
Lundh A, et al. Quality of systematic reviews in pediatric oncology--a systematic review. Cancer Treat Rev. 2009;35(8):645–52.CrossRefPubMed
16.
Braga LH, et al. Methodological concerns and quality appraisal of contemporary systematic reviews and meta-analyses in pediatric urology. J Urol. 2011;186(1):266–71.CrossRefPubMed
17.
18.
Contopoulos-Ioannidis DG, et al. Empirical Evaluation of Age Groups and Age-Subgroup Analyses in Pediatric Randomized Trials and Pediatric Meta-analyses. Pediatrics. 2012;129(Supplement 3):S161–84.CrossRefPubMed
19.
Haider BA, Bhutta ZA. Neonatal vitamin A supplementation for the prevention of mortality and morbidity in term neonates in developing countries. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2011;10:CD006980.
20.
Dunn AG, et al. The effects of industry sponsorship on comparator selection in trial registrations for neuropsychiatric conditions in children. PLoS One. 2013;8(12):e84951.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
21.
Amin SB, McDermott MP, Shamoo AE. Clinical trials of drugs used off-label in neonates: ethical issues and alternative study designs. Account Res. 2008;15(3):168–87.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
22.
Rheims S, et al. Greater response to placebo in children than in adults: a systematic review and meta-analysis in drug-resistant partial epilepsy. PLoS Med. 2008;5(8):e166.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
23.
Fernandes R, Ferreira JJ, Sampaio C. The placebo response in studies of acute migraine. J Pediatr. 2008;152(4)):527–33. 533 e1.CrossRefPubMed
24.
25.
Kapadia MZ, et al. A Core Outcome Set for Children With Feeding Tubes and Neurologic Impairment: A Systematic Review. Pediatrics. 2016;138(1):e20153967.
26.
Kapadia M, et al. Development of core outcome set for pediatric health conditions: a systematic review. Trials. 2015;16 Suppl 1:P25.CrossRefPubMedCentral
27.
Parker J, et al. The long-term outcomes of interventions for the management of attention-deficit hyperactivity disorder in children and adolescents: a systematic review of randomized controlled trials. Psychol Res Behav Manag. 2013;6:87–99.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
28.
29.
Sinha I, et al. A systematic review of studies that aim to determine which outcomes to measure in clinical trials in children. PLoS Med. 2008;5(4):e96.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
30.
31.
32.
Boluyt N, et al. USefulness of systematic review search strategies in finding child health systematic reviews in medline. Arch Pediatr Adolesc Med. 2008;162(2):111–6.CrossRefPubMed
33.
Leclercq E, et al. Validation of search filters for identifying pediatric studies in PubMed. J Pediatr. 2013;162(3):629–34. e2.CrossRefPubMed
34.
Nations; U., Millennium Development Goals 2014 report, U. Nations, Editor. 2014, United Nations.
35.
UNICEF. UN Inter-agency Group for Child Mortality Estimation. Levels and Trends in Child Mortality, UNICEF, Editor;2014.
36.
Bhutta ZA, Black RE. Global Maternal, Newborn, and Child Health — So Near and Yet So Far. N Engl J Med. 2013;369(23):2226–35.CrossRefPubMed
37.
Bhutta ZA, et al. What works? Interventions for maternal and child undernutrition and survival. Lancet. 2008;371(9610):417–40.CrossRefPubMed
38.
Bhutta ZA, et al. Can available interventions end preventable deaths in mothers, newborn babies, and stillbirths, and at what cost? Lancet. 2014;384(9940):347–70.CrossRefPubMed
39.
Bhutta ZA, et al. Evidence-based interventions for improvement of maternal and child nutrition: what can be done and at what cost? Lancet. 2013;382(9890):452–77.CrossRefPubMed
40.
Bhutta ZA, et al. Interventions to address deaths from childhood pneumonia and diarrhoea equitably: what works and at what cost? Lancet. 2013;381(9875):1417–29.CrossRefPubMed
41.
Bhutta ZA, et al. Stillbirths: what difference can we make and at what cost? Lancet. 2011;377(9776):1523–38.CrossRefPubMed
42.
43.
Partnership for Maternal, Newborn and Child Health, Aga Khan University & WHO. Essential interventions for reproductive maternal, newborn and child outcomes. 2011.
44.
45.
Panagiotou OA, Contopoulos-Ioannidis DG, Ioannidis JPA. Comparative effect sizes in randomised trials from less developed and more developed countries: meta-epidemiological assessment. 346th ed. 2013.
46.
Zhang JS. Efficacy and effectiveness of 20 child health interventions in China: Systematic review of Chinese literature. J Glob Health. 2011;1(1):87–95.PubMedPubMedCentral
47.
Schunemann HJ, Fretheim A, Oxman AD. Improving the use of research evidence in guideline development: 1. Guidelines for guidelines. Health Res Policy Syst. 2006;4:13.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
48.
Askie LM, et al. Inhaled nitric oxide in preterm infants: an individual-patient data meta-analysis of randomized trials. Pediatrics. 2011;128(4):729–39.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
49.
Hemkens LG, C-ID, Ioannidis JPA. Routinely Collected Data and Comparative Effectiveness Evidence: Promises and Limitations.CMAJ (provisionally accepted). 2015.
50.
Hemkens LG, C-ID., Ioannidis JPA., Do Routinely Collected Health Data complement randomized evidence? A survey.CMAJ open (prov. accepted) 2015.
51.
Haidich AB, et al. Most meta-analyses of drug interventions have narrow scopes and many focus on specific agents. J Clin Epidemiol. 2013;66(4):371–8.CrossRefPubMed
52.
Hutton B, et al. The PRISMA extension statement for reporting of systematic reviews incorporating network meta-analyses of health care interventions: checklist and explanations. Ann Intern Med. 2015;162(11):777–84.CrossRefPubMed
53.
John C Sinclair, M.B.B., Effective Care of the Newborn Infant. ed. O.U. Press. 1992: Oxford University Press.
54.
Doyle LW, Ehrenkranz RA, Halliday HL. Late (>7 days) postnatal corticosteroids for chronic lung disease in preterm infants. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2014;5:CD001145.
55.
Halliday HL, Ehrenkranz RA, Doyle LW. Moderately early (7-14 days) postnatal corticosteroids for preventing chronic lung disease in preterm infants. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2003;1:CD001144.
56.
Halliday HL, Ehrenkranz RA, Doyle LW. Early (< 8 days) postnatal corticosteroids for preventing chronic lung disease in preterm infants. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2009;1:CD001146.
57.
Clyburne-Sherin A, et al. SPIRIT Extension for Child Health Trials (SPIRIT-C) 2015: explanation and elaboration Under Review by Co-Authors. 2015.
58.
Clyburne-Sherin A, et al. CONSORT Extension for Child Health Trials (CONSORT-C) 2015: explanation and elaboration. 2015. Under Review by the Co-Authors.
59.
Stewart LA, et al. Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Review and Meta-Analyses of individual participant data: the PRISMA-IPD Statement. JAMA. 2015;313(16):1657–65.CrossRefPubMed
60.
Hutton B, et al. The quality of reporting methods and results in network meta-analyses: an overview of reviews and suggestions for improvement. PLoS One. 2014;9(3):e92508.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
61.
Welch V, et al. PRISMA-Equity 2012 extension: reporting guidelines for systematic reviews with a focus on health equity. PLoS Med. 2012;9(10):e1001333.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
62.
Kapadia MZ, et al. 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. BMJ Open. 2016;6(4):e010270.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
Metadata
Title
Do systematic reviews on pediatric topics need special methodological considerations?
Authors
Mufiza Farid-Kapadia
Lisa Askie
Lisa Hartling
Despina Contopoulos-Ioannidis
Zulfiqar A. Bhutta
Roger Soll
David Moher
Martin Offringa
Publication date
01-12-2017
Publisher
BioMed Central
Published in
BMC Pediatrics / Issue 1/2017
Electronic ISSN: 1471-2431
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1186/s12887-017-0812-1

Other articles of this Issue 1/2017

BMC Pediatrics 1/2017 Go to the issue

Research article

When parents won’t vaccinate their children: a qualitative investigation of australian primary care providers’ experiences

Research article

Reduced PRF1 enhancer methylation in children with a history of severe RSV bronchiolitis in infancy: an association study

Research article

School-time physical activity among Arab elementary school children in Qatar

Research article

Somatic growth in the first six months of life of infants exposed to maternal smoking in pregnancy

Research article

Screening for glucose-6-phosphate dehydrogenase deficiency in neonates: a comparison between cord and peripheral blood samples

Review

Medical decision-making in children and adolescents: developmental and neuroscientific aspects