RESUMO
Introduction: On a global scale, women and childbearing people and neonates continue to die from preventable causes related to pregnancy or childbirth. Sustained and accelerated efforts are critical to improve maternal and neonatal health and well-being. Globally, youth are a growing population and have strength in their numbers. Youth are critical, key drivers of change in their communities. Young people hold the potential to affect positive change, and their meaningful engagement is important to improving maternal health and well-being in low- and middle-income countries. Objectives: To assess the effects of community level youth-led interventions for improving maternal-neonatal health and well-being compared with no interventions or another intervention. Methods: We will undertake a literature search that is comprehensive, complete, and exhaustive. This will include databases such as MEDLINE, EMBASE, and the Cochrane Library, as well as a grey literature search. In our systematic review, we will include experimental studies evaluating maternal-neonatal health and well-being associated with or because of the implementation of community level youth-led interventions. Participants will include women and childbearing people (of any age) during antepartum, intrapartum, and postpartum periods (up to 42 days postpartum). We will examine all interventions addressing and targeting maternal-neonatal health and well-being that are youth-led and community-based and aimed at the members of the community. Our comparators will be no intervention or another intervention. Our primary outcomes are maternal deaths and neonatal deaths. Our review will include only studies in low- and middle-income countries conducted in urban or rural areas. Ethics and Dissemination. Ethics approval is not required as we will use secondary data that is publicly available. There are no active participants in our study. We will involve key stakeholders and experts in maternal-neonatal health regarding dissemination and knowledge mobilization strategies. Our findings will be disseminated as an open access publication, be presented publicly, and defended as part of a doctoral thesis. This trial is registered with CRD42021288798.
RESUMO
In an effort to better utilize published evidence obtained from animal experiments, systematic reviews of preclinical studies are increasingly more common-along with the methods and tools to appraise them (e.g., SYstematic Review Center for Laboratory animal Experimentation [SYRCLE's] risk of bias tool). We performed a cross-sectional study of a sample of recent preclinical systematic reviews (2015-2018) and examined a range of epidemiological characteristics and used a 46-item checklist to assess reporting details. We identified 442 reviews published across 43 countries in 23 different disease domains that used 26 animal species. Reporting of key details to ensure transparency and reproducibility was inconsistent across reviews and within article sections. Items were most completely reported in the title, introduction, and results sections of the reviews, while least reported in the methods and discussion sections. Less than half of reviews reported that a risk of bias assessment for internal and external validity was undertaken, and none reported methods for evaluating construct validity. Our results demonstrate that a considerable number of preclinical systematic reviews investigating diverse topics have been conducted; however, their quality of reporting is inconsistent. Our study provides the justification and evidence to inform the development of guidelines for conducting and reporting preclinical systematic reviews.