Skip to main content

Table 1 Potential modification and extension items beyond the current PRISMA-P and PRISMA for child-centric systematic reviews

From: Do systematic reviews on pediatric topics need special methodological considerations?

Section/topic # PRISMA-Original Item
Potential modifications* for PRISMA-Children are bolded
PRISMA-Children Potential extension items
Title 1 Identify the report as a systematic review, meta-analysis, or both for pediatric population as a focus of review with age group stated, if applicable.  
Structured summary 2 Provide a structured summary including, as applicable: background; objectives; data sources; study eligibility criteria, including specifying targeted pediatric age groups, interventions; primary and secondary outcomes, study appraisal and synthesis methods; results; limitations; conclusions and implications of key findings; systematic review registration number. 2a. If a systematic review includes both adults and children, describe a subgroup analysis for the pediatric population(s) in the methods and results of the abstract
2b. Abstract report broad search strategy related to pediatric population
2c. Abstract describes applicability or limits of applicability of results to the pediatric group and sub-group(s)
Rationale 3 Describe the rationale for the review in the context of what is already known. 3a. Describe potential for extrapolation of evidence from adult data, or why extrapolation is not considered possible
3b. Describe any hypotheses that relate to particular pediatric population or pediatric subgroups.
Objectives 4 Provide an explicit statement of questions being addressed with reference to targeted pediatric age group(s), interventions, comparisons, outcomes, and study design (PICOS).  
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.  
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. 6a. Participants: Justify the eligible pediatric age range and age group(s) selected for the systematic review, addressing potential age related differences in intervention effects
6b1. Intervention: Justify an intervention for pediatric age range and age groups
6b2. Provide rationale for extrapolation or manipulation of adult intervention, if any
6c. Comparison: Explanation for a choice of comparison group and, if applicable, evidence for active comparator (for systematic reviews of RCTs) or standard of care for pediatric population and/or sub-groups
6d1. Outcomes: State all short and long term outcomes addressed for pediatric population and define them in detail. State whether they were primary/main or secondary/additional outcomes
6d2. Outcomes: Explain the clinical relevance of the selected outcomes (benefits and harms) for the pre-specified pediatric age group(s)
6d3. Outcomes: Explain the validity, feasibility and responsiveness of the outcome measures for the pre-specified pediatric age group(s)
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.  
Search 8 Present full electronic search strategy for at least one database, including any limits used, such that it could be repeated. 8a. Describe the broad search strategy and terms (including database specific MeSH terms for pediatric population) used to address the pediatric population
8b. Describe any tested pediatric search filters used in the systematic review including sensitivity and precision of the search filters for retrieving child health systematic reviews
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).  
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.  
Data items 11 List and define all variables for which data were sought (e.g., PICOS, funding sources) and any assumptions and simplifications made.  
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. 12a. 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, for the trial(s).
Summary measures 13 State the principal summary measures (e.g., risk ratio, difference in means).  
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. 14a. Describe how studies (that include both adult and pediatric population but) without separate subgroup analysis for pediatric population were dealt in the analysis (where applicable)
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).  
Additional analyses 16 Describe methods of additional analyses (e.g., sensitivity or subgroup analyses targeted pediatric age group(s), meta-regression), if done, indicating which were pre-specified.  
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.  
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. 18a. Provide sample size of pediatric group and sub-groups (if applicable) for each study
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).  
Results of individual studies 20 For all outcomes considered (benefits or harms), present, for each study: (a) simple summary data for each intervention group (b) effect estimates and confidence intervals, ideally with a forest plot.  
Synthesis of results 21 Present results of each meta-analysis done, including confidence intervals and measures of consistency. 21a. Report the numbers of included studies with pediatric participants and, where applicable, report the number of events and total pediatric population on which the result synthesis is based.
21b. Provide a description of the direction and size of effect in terms meaningful to those who would put findings into practice in a pediatric population.
Risk of bias across studies 22 Present results of any assessment of risk of bias across studies (see Item 15).  
Additional analysis 23 Give results of additional analyses, if done (e.g., sensitivity or subgroup analyses for targeted pediatric age group(s), meta-regression [see Item 16]).  
Summary of evidence 24 Summarize the main findings including the strength of evidence for each main outcome; consider their relevance to key groups (e.g., healthcare providers, users e.g., children and/or their parents, and policy makers).  
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), including any limitations arising from pediatric studies that were not available.  
Conclusions 26 Provide a general interpretation of the results in the context of other evidence (e.g., evidence from adult studies, preclinical studies and studies based on routinely collected data e.g. Electronic health Record data or Registry data), and implications for future research. 26a. Provide extent and limits of applicability of the synthesised evidence to pediatric population of interest and describe the evidence and logic underlying those judgements.
26b. Provide implication for research, practice, or policy related to pediatric population where relevant (e.g., types of research needed to address unanswered question in the pediatric population).
26c. Provide a general interpretation of the results in the context of other evidence (e.g., evidence from adult studies, observational studies, and pre-clinical studies). Provide implications for future research, practice, or policy related to the targeted pediatric age group(s).
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.  
  1. *modifications text in the original items are bold; extension items are represented in a separate column labelled as PRISMA-Children Potential extension items