© 2012, Crown Copyright.
Included under terms of UK Non-commercial Government License.
Bookshelf ID: NBK98563
NCBI Bookshelf. A service of the National Library of Medicine, National Institutes of Health.
Picot J, Hartwell D, Harris P, et al. The Effectiveness of Interventions to Treat Severe Acute Malnutrition in Young Children: A Systematic Review. Southampton (UK): NIHR Journals Library; 2012 Apr. (Health Technology Assessment, No. 16.19.)
The Effectiveness of Interventions to Treat Severe Acute Malnutrition in Young Children: A Systematic Review.
Show details| Section/topic | Item | Checklist item | Reported on page number(s) |
|---|---|---|---|
| Title | |||
| Title | 1 | Identify the report as a systematic review, meta-analysis or both | i, iii |
| Abstract | |||
| Structured summary | 2 | Provide a structured summary including, as applicable: background; objectives; data sources; study eligibility criteria, participants and interventions; study appraisal and synthesis methods; results; limitations; conclusions and implications of key findings; systematic review registration number | Abstract iii–iv Executive summary ix–xiii |
| Introduction | |||
| Rationale | 3 | Describe the rationale for the review in the context of what is already known | 1–9 |
| Objectives | 4 | Provide an explicit statement of questions being addressed with reference to PICOS | 8 |
| Methods | |||
| Protocol and registration | 5 | Indicate if a review protocol exists, if and where it can be accessed (e.g. web address), and, if available, provide registration information including registration number | 11, Appendix 1 |
| Eligibility criteria | 6 | 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 | 12–14 |
| Information sources | 7 | Describe all information sources (e.g. databases with dates of coverage, contact with study authors to identify additional studies) in the search and date last searched | 11, Appendix 3 |
| Search | 8 | Present full electronic search strategy for at least one database, including any limits used, such that it could be repeated | Appendix 3 |
| Study selection | 9 | State the process for selecting studies (i.e. screening, eligibility, included in systematic review, and, if applicable, included in the meta-analysis) | 12–14 |
| Data collection process | 10 | Describe method of data extraction from reports (e.g. piloted forms, independently, in duplicate) and any processes for obtaining and confirming data from investigators | 14 |
| Data items | 11 | List and define all variables for which data were sought (e.g. PICOS, funding sources) and any assumptions and simplifications made | 12–14, Appendices 7–12 |
| Risk of bias in individual studies | 12 | Describe methods used for assessing risk of bias of individual studies (including specification of whether this was done at the study or outcome level) and how this information is to be used in any data synthesis | 14, Appendix 4 |
| Summary measures | 13 | State the principal summary measures (e.g. RR, difference in means) | N/A, narrative synthesis |
| Synthesis of results | 14 | Describe the methods of handling data and combining results of studies, if done, including measures of consistency (e.g. I2) for each meta-analysis | N/A, narrative synthesis |
| Risk of bias across studies | 15 | Specify any assessment of risk of bias that may affect the cumulative evidence (e.g. publication bias, selective reporting within studies) | 14, Appendix 4 |
| Additional analyses | 16 | Describe methods of additional analyses (e.g. sensitivity or subgroup analyses, meta-regression), if done, indicating which were pre-specified | N/A, narrative synthesis |
| Results | |||
| Study selection | 17 | Give numbers of studies screened, assessed for eligibility, and included in the review, with reasons for exclusions at each stage, ideally with a flow diagram | 17, 19 |
| Study characteristics | 18 | For each study, present characteristics for which data were extracted (e.g. study size, PICOS, follow-up period) and provide the citations | 19–20, 20–22, 26–29, 36–39, 45–47, 50–51, 54–57, 63–67, 81–82, Appendices 7–12 |
| Risk of bias within studies | 19 | Present data on risk of bias of each study and, if available, any outcome level assessment (see Item 12) | 23, 31, 40,48, 53, 58, 70, 83, Appendices 7–12 |
| Results of individual studies | 20 | For all outcomes considered (benefits or harms), present, for each study: (1) simple summary data for each intervention group and (2) effect estimates and CIs, ideally with a forest plot | 20, 22–25, 30–36, 39–45, 47–50, 51–54, 59–63, 69–79, 84–87, Appendices 7–12 |
| Synthesis of results | 21 | Present results of each meta-analysis done, including CIs and measures of consistency | N/A |
| Risk of bias across studies | 22 | Present results of any assessment of risk of bias across studies (see Item 15) | 23, 31, 40, 48, 53, 58, 70, 83 |
| Additional analysis | 23 | Give results of additional analyses, if done [e.g. sensitivity or subgroup analyses, meta-regression (see Item 16)] | N/A |
| Discussion | |||
| Summary of evidence | 24 | Summarise the main findings including the strength of evidence for each main outcome; consider their relevance to key groups (e.g. health-care providers, users and policy-makers) | 89–95, 99 |
| Limitations | 25 | Discuss limitations at study and outcome level (e.g. risk of bias), and at review level (e.g. incomplete retrieval of identified research, reporting bias) | 95–98 |
| Conclusions | 26 | Provide a general interpretation of the results in the context of other evidence, and implications for future research | 89–95, 99, 100 |
| Funding | |||
| Funding | 27 | Describe sources of funding for the systematic review and other support (e.g. supply of data); role of funders for the systematic review | iv |
N/A, not applicable; PICOS, participants, interventions, comparisons, outcomes and study design; RR, risk ratio.
From: Moher D, Liberati A, Tetzlaff J, Altman DG, The PRISMA Group. Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses: the PRISMA statement. PLoS Med 2009;6(7):e1000097. doi:10.1371/journal.pmed1000097.
- The Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses checklist...The Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses checklist - The Effectiveness of Interventions to Treat Severe Acute Malnutrition in Young Children: A Systematic Review
Your browsing activity is empty.
Activity recording is turned off.
See more...