Reporting guidelines and a touch of critical appraisal.

The biomedical research process must follow certain quality criteria in its design and development to ensure that the results are credible and reliable. Once completed, the time comes to write an article for publication. The article must present in sufficient detail, and in a clear and transparent manner, all the information on the research work that has been carried out. In this way, readers, after a critical reading of the published content, will be able to judge the validity and relevance of the study and, if they so wish, make use of the findings. In order to improve the description of the research process for publication, a series of guidelines have been developed which, in a simple and structured way, guide authors in the preparation of a manuscript. They are presented in the form of a list, flowchart, or structured text, and are an invaluable aid when writing an article. This article presents the reporting guidelines for the most common designs along with the corresponding checklists.

COVID-19: Critical appraisal of the evidence.

We present the summary of a critical appraisal document of the available evidence on COVID-19, developed with a clinical practice guide format following GRADE methodology. The document tries to provide answers to a series of structured clinical questions, with an explicit definition of the population, intervention / exposure, comparison and outcome, and a rating of the clinical relevance of the outcome measures. We conducted a systematic review of the literature to answer the questions, grouped into six chapters: epidemiology, clinical practice, diagnosis, treatment, prevention, and vaccination. We assessed the risk of bias of the selected studies with standard instruments (RoB-2, ROBINS-I, QUADAS and Newcastle-Ottawa). We constructed evidence tables and, when necessary and possible, meta-analysis of the of the most relevant outcome measures. We followed the GRADE system to synthesise the evidence, assessing its quality, and, when appropriate, giving recommendations, rated according to the quality of the evidence, the values and preferences, the balance between benefits, risks and costs, equity and feasibility.

[COVID-19: Critical appraisal of the evidence]. / COVID-19 en pediatría: valoración crítica de la evidencia.

We present the summary of a critical appraisal document of the available evidence on COVID-19, developed with a clinical practice guide format following GRADE methodology. The document tries to provide answers to a series of structured clinical questions, with an explicit definition of the population, intervention/exposure, comparison and outcome, and a rating of the clinical relevance of the outcome measures. We conducted a systematic review of the literature to answer the questions, grouped into six chapters: epidemiology, clinical practice, diagnosis, treatment, prevention, and vaccination. We assessed the risk of bias of the selected studies with standard instruments (RoB-2, ROBINS-I, QUADAS and Newcastle-Ottawa). We constructed evidence tables and, when necessary and possible, meta-analysis of the of the most relevant outcome measures. We followed the GRADE system to synthesize the evidence, assessing its quality, and, when appropriate, giving recommendations, rated according to the quality of the evidence, the values and preferences, the balance between benefits, risks and costs, equity and feasibility.

Paediatricians provide higher quality care to children and adolescents in primary care: A systematic review.

AIM: The number of primary care paediatricians is decreasing in Europe without a justifiable reason. We aimed to compare the clinical practice of paediatricians and family doctors attending children and adolescents in primary care. METHODS: MEDLINE, Embase, CENTRAL, TRIP and Google Scholar were searched from December 2008 to February 2018. No language or study design restrictions were applied. Three reviewers assessed eligibility of the studies. Seven pairs of reviewers performed the data extraction and assessed the methodological quality independently. Discrepancies were resolved by consensus. RESULTS: Fifty-four, out of 1150 studies preselected, were included. We found that paediatricians show more appropriate pharmacology prescription patterns for the illness being treated; they achieve higher vaccination rates and have better knowledge of vaccines and fewer doubts about vaccine safety; their knowledge and implementation of different screening tests are better; they prescribe psychoactive drugs more cautiously and more in line with current practice guidelines; their evaluation and treatment of obesity and lipid disorders follow criteria more consistently with current clinical practice guidelines; and they perform fewer diagnostic test, show a more suitable use of the test and request fewer referrals to specialists. CONCLUSION: According to published data, in developed countries, paediatricians provide higher quality care to children than family doctors.