Deworming and micronutrient status by community open defecation prevalence: An observational study using nationally representative data from India, 2016-2018.

BACKGROUND: Micronutrient deficiencies are widespread in India. Soil-transmitted helminth (STH) infections are acquired by interaction with soil and water contaminated by human feces and lead to blood loss and poor micronutrient absorption. The current recommendation for control of STH-related morbidity is targeted deworming, yet little is known about the effectiveness of deworming on micronutrient status in varying sanitation contexts. Ranging between 1% and 40% prevalence across Indian states, open defecation (OD) remains high despite India's investments at elimination by promoting community-wide sanitation. This variation provides an opportunity to study the relationship between deworming, micronutrient status, and OD at-scale. METHODS AND FINDINGS: Cross-sectional datasets that were representative for India were obtained the Comprehensive National Nutrition Survey in 2016 to 2018 (n = 105,060 individuals aged 1 to 19 years). Consumption of deworming medication was described by age and community OD level. Logistic regression models were used to examine the relationship between deworming, cluster OD, and their interactions, with anemia and micronutrient deficiencies (iron, zinc, vitamin A, folate, and vitamin B12), controlling for age, sex, wealth, diet, and seasonality. These regression models further allowed us to identify a minimum OD rate after which deworming becomes ineffective. In sensitivity analyses, the association between deworming and deficiencies were tested in subsamples of communities classified into 3 OD levels based on statistical tertiles: OD free (0% of households in the community practicing OD), moderate OD (>0% and <30%), or high OD (at least 30%). Average deworming coverage and OD prevalence in the sample were 43.4% [IQR 26.0, 59.0] and 19.1% [IQR 0, 28.5], respectively. Controlling for other determinants of nutritional status, adolescents living in communities with higher OD levels had lower coverage of deworming and higher prevalence of anemia, zinc, vitamin A, and B12 deficiencies. Compared to those who were not dewormed, dewormed children and adolescents had lower odds of anemia (adjusted odds ratio 0.72, (95% CI [0.67, 0.78], p < 0.001) and deficiencies of iron 0.78, (95% CI [0.74, 0.82], p < 0.001) and folate 0.69, (95% CI [0.64,0.74], p<0.001)) in OD free communities. These protective effects remained significant for anemia but diminished for other micronutrient deficiencies in communities with moderate or high OD. Analysis of community OD indicated a threshold range of 30% to 60%, above which targeted deworming was no longer significantly associated with lower anemia, iron, and folate deficiency. The primary limitations of the study included potential for omitted variables bias and inability to capture longitudinal effects. CONCLUSIONS: Moderate to high rates of OD significantly modify the association between deworming and micronutrient status in India. Public health policy could involve sequencing interventions, with focus on improving deworming coverage in communities that have achieved minimum thresholds of OD and re- triggering sanitation interventions in high OD communities prior to deworming days, ensuring high coverage for both. The efficacy of micronutrient supplementation as a complementary strategy to improve nutritional outcomes alongside deworming and OD elimination in this age group needs further study.

Reporting of equity in observational epidemiology: A methodological review.

Background: Observational studies can inform how we understand and address persisting health inequities through the collection, reporting and analysis of health equity factors. However, the extent to which the analysis and reporting of equity-relevant aspects in observational research are generally unknown. Thus, we aimed to systematically evaluate how equity-relevant observational studies reported equity considerations in the study design and analyses. Methods: We searched MEDLINE for health equity-relevant observational studies from January 2020 to March 2022, resulting in 16 828 articles. We randomly selected 320 studies, ensuring a balance in focus on populations experiencing inequities, country income settings, and coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) topic. We extracted information on study design and analysis methods. Results: The bulk of the studies were conducted in North America (n = 95, 30%), followed by Europe and Central Asia (n = 55, 17%). Half of the studies (n = 171, 53%) addressed general health and well-being, while 49 (15%) focused on mental health conditions. Two-thirds of the studies (n = 220, 69%) were cross-sectional. Eight (3%) engaged with populations experiencing inequities, while 22 (29%) adapted recruitment methods to reach these populations. Further, 67 studies (21%) examined interaction effects primarily related to race or ethnicity (48%). Two-thirds of the studies (72%) adjusted for characteristics associated with inequities, and 18 studies (6%) used flow diagrams to depict how populations experiencing inequities progressed throughout the studies. Conclusions: Despite over 80% of the equity-focused observational studies providing a rationale for a focus on health equity, reporting of study design features relevant to health equity ranged from 0-95%, with over half of the items reported by less than one-quarter of studies. This methodological study is a baseline assessment to inform the development of an equity-focussed reporting guideline for observational studies as an extension of the well-known Strengthening Reporting of Observational Studies in Epidemiology (STROBE) guideline.

Understanding the role of household hygiene practices and foodborne disease risks in child stunting: a UKRI GCRF Action Against Stunting Hub protocol paper.

INTRODUCTION: Environmental hygiene and food safety are important determinants of child stunting. This research aims to explore the relationship between child stunting and household hygiene practices and behaviours, including the availability of water, sanitation and hygiene (WASH) facilities; the use of safe food and good quality drinking water (especially when used for complementary feeding); hygienic practices in food transport, storage and preparation and the control of cross-contamination from animals, their produce and waste. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: This study is part of a wider observational study which aims to investigate the interdisciplinary factors contributing to child stunting using a 'whole child' paradigm. The observational study recruits women during pregnancy in Hyderabad, India, Lombok, Indonesia and Kaffrine, Senegal, and dyads (ie, 500 mother-infant pairs per country) are followed longitudinally up to 24 months after birth. Within the interdisciplinary niche, the study here has developed tools to investigate the potential exposure pathways to environmental pathogen contamination of foods and water. Holistic WASH and food safety data collection tools have been developed to explore exposure pathways at the household level, including: (1) survey questionnaires; (2) spot-checks; (3) biological sampling of drinking water, food and domestic surfaces and (4) direct observation. An integrated analytical approach will be used to triangulate the evidence in order to examine the relationships between child stunting, WASH and food safety behaviours. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: Ethical approval of the study was granted by the ethics committee of the LSHTM, RVC, ILRI, ICMR, IIPHG, SEAMEO-RECFON, University of Cheikh Anta Diop. Findings of the study will be disseminated through publication in peer-reviewed journals, relevant international conferences, public engagement events, and policy-maker and stakeholder events.

A scoping review establishes need for consensus guidance on reporting health equity in observational studies.

OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the support from the available guidance on reporting of health equity in research for our candidate items and to identify additional items for the Strengthening Reporting of Observational studies in Epidemiology-Equity extension. STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING: We conducted a scoping review by searching Embase, MEDLINE, CINAHL, Cochrane Methodology Register, LILACS, and Caribbean Center on Health Sciences Information up to January 2022. We also searched reference lists and gray literature for additional resources. We included guidance and assessments (hereafter termed "resources") related to conduct and/or reporting for any type of health research with or about people experiencing health inequity. RESULTS: We included 34 resources, which supported one or more candidate items or contributed to new items about health equity reporting in observational research. Each candidate item was supported by a median of six (range: 1-15) resources. In addition, 12 resources suggested 13 new items, such as "report the background of investigators". CONCLUSION: Existing resources for reporting health equity in observational studies aligned with our interim checklist of candidate items. We also identified additional items that will be considered in the development of a consensus-based and evidence-based guideline for reporting health equity in observational studies.

PROTOCOL: The impact of agricultural mechanisation on women's economic empowerment: A mixed-methods systematic review.

This is the protocol for a Campbell systematic review. The main objective of the review is to answer the following questions: What is the impact of mechanisation on agriculture? What is the impact of mechanisation on women's economic empowerment? The study will review the impact of mechanisation on labour demand and supply, land and labour productivity, farmers' incomes, health and women's empowerment. All literature will be considered, including nonintervention studies and studies not reporting gender-disaggregated results.

PROTOCOL: Value chain interventions for improving women's economic empowerment: A mixed-method systematic review.

This is the protocol for a Campbell systematic review. The objectives are as follows: The primary objective of this review is to understand as well as evaluate what approaches, strategies or interventions focused on women's engagement in agricultural value chains and markets that have led to women's economic empowerment in low-and-middle-income countries. The secondary objective of this review is to examine in which contexts are these approaches effective (or ineffective)? What are the contextual barriers and facilitators, determining the participation of women in, and benefits from, engagement in the value chain in low-and middle-income countries programme effectiveness. Finally, this review aims to refine the theory of change that describes how value chain interventions lead to women's economic empowerment using evidence drawn from both rigorous quantitative impact evaluation studies and qualitative studies.

Impact on childhood mortality of interventions to improve drinking water, sanitation, and hygiene (WASH) to households: Systematic review and meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: In low- and middle-income countries (L&MICs), the biggest contributing factors to the global burden of disease in childhood are deaths due to respiratory illness and diarrhoea, both of which are closely related to use of water, sanitation, and hygiene (WASH) services by households. However, current estimates of the health impacts of WASH interventions use self-reported morbidity, which may fail to capture longer-term or more severe impacts. Reported mortality is thought to be less prone to bias than other reported measures. This study aimed to answer the question: What are the impacts of WASH interventions on reported childhood mortality in L&MICs? METHODS AND FINDINGS: We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis, using a published protocol. Systematic searches of 11 academic databases and trial registries, plus organisational repositories, were undertaken to locate studies of WASH interventions, which were published in peer review journals or other sources (e.g., organisational reports and working papers). Intervention studies of WASH improvements implemented under endemic disease circumstances in L&MICs were eligible, which reported findings at any time until March 2020. We used the participant flow data supplied in response to journal editors' calls for greater transparency. Data were collected by two authors working independently. We included evidence from 24 randomized and 11 nonrandomized studies of WASH interventions from all global regions, incorporating 2,600 deaths. Effects of 48 WASH treatment arms were included in analysis. We critically appraised and synthesised evidence using meta-analysis to improve statistical power. We found WASH interventions are associated with a significant reduction of 17% in the odds of all-cause mortality in childhood (OR = 0.83, 95% CI = 0.74, 0.92, evidence from 38 interventions), and a significant reduction in diarrhoea mortality of 45% (OR = 0.55, 95% CI = 0.35, 0.84; 10 interventions). Further analysis by WASH technology indicated interventions providing improved water in quantity to households were most consistently associated with reductions in all-cause mortality. Community-wide sanitation was most consistently associated with reductions in diarrhoea mortality. Around one-half of the included studies were assessed as being at "moderate risk of bias" in attributing mortality in childhood to the WASH intervention, and no studies were found to be at "low risk of bias." The review should be updated to incorporate additional published and unpublished participant flow data. CONCLUSIONS: The findings are congruent with theories of infectious disease transmission. Washing with water presents a barrier to respiratory illness and diarrhoea, which are the two biggest contributors to all-cause mortality in childhood in L&MICs. Community-wide sanitation halts the spread of diarrhoea. We observed that evidence synthesis can provide new findings, going beyond the underlying data from trials to generate crucial insights for policy. Transparent reporting in trials creates opportunities for research synthesis to answer questions about mortality, which individual studies of interventions cannot be reliably designed to address.

Can Non-Randomised Studies of Interventions Provide Unbiased Effect Estimates? A Systematic Review of Internal Replication Studies.

Non-randomized studies of intervention effects (NRS), also called quasi-experiments, provide useful decision support about development impacts. However, the assumptions underpinning them are usually untestable, their verification resting on empirical replication. The internal replication study aims to do this by comparing results from a causal benchmark study, usually a randomized controlled trial (RCT), with those from an NRS conducted at the same time in the sampled population. We aimed to determine the credibility and generalizability of findings in internal replication studies in development economics, through a systematic review and meta-analysis. We systematically searched for internal replication studies of RCTs conducted on socioeconomic interventions in low- and middle-income countries. We critically appraised the benchmark randomized studies, using an adapted tool. We extracted and statistically synthesized empirical measures of bias. We included 600 estimates of correspondence between NRS and benchmark RCTs. All internal replication studies were found to have at least "some concerns" about bias and some had high risk of bias. We found that study designs with selection on unobservables, in particular regression discontinuity, on average produced absolute standardized bias estimates that were approximately zero, that is, equivalent to the estimates produced by RCTs. But study conduct also mattered. For example, matching using pre-tests and nearest neighbor algorithms corresponded more closely to the benchmarks. The findings from this systematic review confirm that NRS can produce unbiased estimates. Authors of internal replication studies should publish pre-analysis protocols to enhance their credibility.

The effect of improving solid waste collection on waste disposal behaviour and exposure to environmental risk factors in urban low-income communities in Pakistan.

OBJECTIVE: To estimate the effect of improving waste collection services on waste disposal behaviour and exposure to environmental risk factors in urban, low-income communities in Pakistan. METHODS: We enrolled six low-income communities in Islamabad (Pakistan), four of which received an intervention consisting of a door-to-door low-cost waste collection service with centralised waste processing and recycling sites. Intervention communities underwent community-level and household-level mobilisation. The effect of the intervention on waste disposal behaviour, exposure to waste and synanthropic fly counts was measured using two cross-sectional surveys in 180 households per community. RESULTS: Intervention communities had less favourable socio-economic indicators and poorer access to waste disposal services at baseline than control communities. Use of any waste collection service increased from 5% to 49% in the intervention communities (difference 44%, 95% CI 41%, 48%), but the increase was largely confined to two communities where post-intervention coverage exceeded 80% and 90%, respectively. An increase in the use of waste collection services was also found in the two control communities (from 21% to 67%, difference 47%, 95% CI 41%, 53%). Fly counts decreased by about 60% in the intervention communities (rate ratio 0.4, 95% CI 0.3, 0.4) but not in the control communities (rate ratio 1.52, 95% CI 1.1, 2.2). The decrease in fly counts was largely confined to the two high-coverage intervention communities. CONCLUSION: Introduction of a low-cost waste collection service has the potential for high uptake in low-income communities and for decreasing the exposure to waste and synanthropic flies at household level. Intervention success was constrained by low uptake in half of the intervention communities.

Quantifying the effectiveness and health co-benefits of climate change mitigation actions across sectors: a protocol for an umbrella review.

BACKGROUND: Effective and rapid actions are required to achieve global goals for climate change mitigation, and there is an opportunity to ensure that the actions taken are also positive for human health. However, little is known about the relative magnitude of the health co-benefits that can be achieved from mitigation actions, so robust and comprehensive syntheses of the evidence on the nature and effects of relevant actions are required. This paper presents a protocol for an interdisciplinary and cross-sectoral umbrella review of systematic reviews, synthesising modelled and empirical evidence on such actions. METHODS: Nine bibliographic databases will be searched, capturing literature across a wide range of disciplines and sectors. Unique records retrieved by the searches will be screened by two independent reviewers. The quality of all the included systematic reviews will be assessed using A MeaSurement Tool to Assess Systematic Reviews (AMSTAR) 2 critical appraisal tool. Data will be extracted on methodological and thematic characteristics of the reviews, nature of the actions, and their effects on greenhouse gas emission reduction, health, and its determinants, as well as any other reported effects and interactions across different actions. RESULTS: Narrative and quantitative synthesis methods will be used to create a typology of relevant actions, map pathways to their impacts on health, compare the magnitude of health and greenhouse gas (GHG) emission reduction impacts by selected characteristics of the actions and the nature of the evidence, as well as to identify gaps in evidence syntheses. CONCLUSION: This review will identify the most effective actions for global climate change mitigation and health based on the best available scientific evidence.   This protocol has been registered in PROSPERO, Reg No.: CRD42021239292.

PROTOCOL: Interventions promoting resilience through climate-smart agricultural practices for women farmers: A systematic review.

This is the protocol for a Campbell systematic review. The objectives are as follows: the primary objective of this review is to synthesise evidence of the effectiveness of interventions to promote climate-smart agriculture to enhance agricultural outcomes and resilience of women farmers in low-and-middle-income countries (research question 1). The secondary objective is to examine evidence along the causal pathway from access to interventions to promote climate-smart agriculture to empowering women so that they can use climate-smart technology. And such outcomes include knowledge sharing, agency improvement, resource access and decision-making (research question 2).

PROTOCOL: Gender transformative approaches in agriculture for women's empowerment: A systematic review.

This is the protocol for a Campbell systematic review. The objective of this systematic review is to assess the effectiveness of interventions with gender transformative approach (GTA) components in improving women's empowerment in low- and middle-income countries, and to curate evidence on the mechanisms through which GTA works to improve women's empowerment in agriculture.

Interventions promoting uptake of water, sanitation and hygiene (WASH) technologies in low- and middle-income countries: An evidence and gap map of effectiveness studies.

Background: Lack of access to and use of water, sanitation and hygiene (WASH) cause 1.6 million deaths every year, of which 1.2 million are due to gastrointestinal illnesses like diarrhoea and acute respiratory infections like pneumonia. Poor WASH access and use also diminish nutrition and educational attainment, and cause danger and stress for vulnerable populations, especially for women and girls. The hardest hit regions are sub-Saharan Africa and South Asia. Sustainable Development Goal (SDG) 6 calls for the end of open defecation, and universal access to safely managed water and sanitation facilities, and basic hand hygiene, by 2030. WASH access and use also underpin progress in other areas such as SDG1 poverty targets, SDG3 health and SDG4 education targets. Meeting the SDG equity agenda to "leave none behind" will require WASH providers prioritise the hardest to reach including those living remotely and people who are disadvantaged. Objectives: Decision makers need access to high-quality evidence on what works in WASH promotion in different contexts, and for different groups of people, to reach the most disadvantaged populations and thereby achieve universal targets. The WASH evidence map is envisioned as a tool for commissioners and researchers to identify existing studies to fill synthesis gaps, as well as helping to prioritise new studies where there are gaps in knowledge. It also supports policymakers and practitioners to navigate the evidence base, including presenting critically appraised findings from existing systematic reviews. Methods: This evidence map presents impact evaluations and systematic reviews from the WASH sector, organised according to the types of intervention mechanisms, WASH technologies promoted, and outcomes measured. It is based on a framework of intervention mechanisms (e.g., behaviour change triggering or microloans) and outcomes along the causal pathway, specifically behavioural outcomes (e.g., handwashing and food hygiene practices), ill-health outcomes (e.g., diarrhoeal morbidity and mortality), nutrition and socioeconomic outcomes (e.g., school absenteeism and household income). The map also provides filters to examine the evidence for a particular WASH technology (e.g., latrines), place of use (e.g., home, school or health facility), location (e.g., global region, country, rural and urban) and group (e.g., people living with disability). Systematic searches for published and unpublished literature and trial registries were conducted of studies in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs). Searches were conducted in March 2018, and searches for completed trials were done in May 2020. Coding of information for the map was done by two authors working independently. Impact evaluations were critically appraised according to methods of conduct and reporting. Systematic reviews were critically appraised using a new approach to assess theory-based, mixed-methods evidence synthesis. Results: There has been an enormous growth in impact evaluations and systematic reviews of WASH interventions since the International Year of Sanitation, 2008. There are now at least 367 completed or ongoing rigorous impact evaluations in LMICs, nearly three-quarters of which have been conducted since 2008, plus 43 systematic reviews. Studies have been done in 83 LMICs, with a high concentration in Bangladesh, India, and Kenya. WASH sector programming has increasingly shifted in focus from what technology to supply (e.g., a handwashing station or child's potty), to the best way in which to do so to promote demand. Research also covers a broader set of intervention mechanisms. For example, there has been increased interest in behaviour change communication using psychosocial "triggering", such as social marketing and community-led total sanitation. These studies report primarily on behavioural outcomes. With the advent of large-scale funding, in particular by the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, there has been a substantial increase in the number of studies on sanitation technologies, particularly latrines. Sustaining behaviour is fundamental for sustaining health and other quality of life improvements. However, few studies have been done of intervention mechanisms for, or measuring outcomes on sustained adoption of latrines to stop open defaecation. There has also been some increase in the number of studies looking at outcomes and interventions that disproportionately affect women and girls, who quite literally carry most of the burden of poor water and sanitation access. However, most studies do not report sex disaggregated outcomes, let alone integrate gender analysis into their framework. Other vulnerable populations are even less addressed; no studies eligible for inclusion in the map were done of interventions targeting, or reporting on outcomes for, people living with disabilities. We were only able to find a single controlled evaluation of WASH interventions in a health care facility, in spite of the importance of WASH in health facilities in global policy debates. The quality of impact evaluations has improved, such as the use of controlled designs as standard, attention to addressing reporting biases, and adequate cluster sample size. However, there remain important concerns about quality of reporting. The quality and usefulness of systematic reviews for policy is also improving, which draw clearer distinctions between intervention mechanisms and synthesise the evidence on outcomes along the causal pathway. Adopting mixed-methods approaches also provides information for programmes on barriers and enablers affecting implementation. Conclusion: Ensuring everyone has access to appropriate water, sanitation, and hygiene facilities is one of the most fundamental of challenges for poverty elimination. Researchers and funders need to consider carefully where there is the need for new primary evidence, and new syntheses of that evidence. This study suggests the following priority areas:Impact evaluations incorporating understudied outcomes, such as sustainability and slippage, of WASH provision in understudied places of use, such as health care facilities, and of interventions targeting, or presenting disaggregated data for, vulnerable populations, particularly over the life-course and for people living with a disability;Improved reporting in impact evaluations, including presentation of participant flow diagrams; andSynthesis studies and updates in areas with sufficient existing and planned impact evaluations, such as for diarrhoea mortality, ARIs, WASH in schools and decentralisation. These studies will preferably be conducted as mixed-methods systematic reviews that are able to answer questions about programme targeting, implementation, effectiveness and cost-effectiveness, and compare alternative intervention mechanisms to achieve and sustain outcomes in particular contexts, preferably using network meta-analysis.

PROTOCOL: Water, sanitation and hygiene for reducing childhood mortality in low- and middle-income countries.

Respiratory tract infections and diarrhoea are the two biggest killers of children in low income contexts. They are closely related to access to, and use of improved water, sanitation and hygiene (WASH). However, there is no high quality systematic review that quantifies the effect of WASH improvements on childhood mortality. Existing systematic reviews of WASH improvements measure effects on morbidity, under the (often implicit) assumption that morbidity is closely correlated with mortality. This is at least partly because the impact evaluations on which they are based are only designed to detect changes in morbidity with statistical precision, whereas mortality is a relatively rare outcome. The proposed review will address this evidence synthesis gap, using the greater statistical power of meta-analysis to pool findings across studies.

Guidance for producing a Campbell evidence and gap map.

Evidence and Gap Maps (EGMs) are a systematic evidence synthesis product which display the available evidence relevant to a specific research question. EGMs are produced following the same principles as a systematic reviews, that is: specify a PICOS, a comprehensive search, screening against explicit inclusion and exclusion criteria, and systematic coding, analysis and reporting. This paper provides guidance on producing EGMs for publication in Campbell Systematic Reviews.

Within study comparisons and risk of bias in international development: Systematic review and critical appraisal.

Background: Many systematic reviews incorporate nonrandomised studies of effects, sometimes called quasi-experiments or natural experiments. However, the extent to which nonrandomised studies produce unbiased effect estimates is unclear in expectation or in practice. The usual way that systematic reviews quantify bias is through "risk of bias assessment" and indirect comparison of findings across studies using meta-analysis. A more direct, practical way to quantify the bias in nonrandomised studies is through "internal replication research", which compares the findings from nonrandomised studies with estimates from a benchmark randomised controlled trial conducted in the same population. Despite the existence of many risks of bias tools, none are conceptualised to assess comprehensively nonrandomised approaches with selection on unobservables, such as regression discontinuity designs (RDDs). The few that are conceptualised with these studies in mind do not draw on the extensive literature on internal replications (within-study comparisons) of randomised trials. Objectives: Our research objectives were as follows:Objective 1: to undertake a systematic review of nonrandomised internal study replications of international development interventions.Objective 2: to develop a risk of bias tool for RDDs, an increasingly common method used in social and economic programme evaluation. Methods: We used the following methods to achieve our objectives.Objective 1: we searched systematically for nonrandomised internal study replications of benchmark randomised experiments of social and economic interventions in low- and middle-income countries (L&MICs). We assessed the risk of bias in benchmark randomised experiments and synthesised evidence on the relative bias effect sizes produced by benchmark and nonrandomised comparison arms.Objective 2: We used document review and expert consultation to develop further a risk of bias tool for quasi-experimental studies of interventions (ROBINS-I) for RDDs. Results: Objective 1: we located 10 nonrandomised internal study replications of randomised trials in L&MICs, six of which are of RDDs and the remaining use a combination of statistical matching and regression techniques. We found that benchmark experiments used in internal replications in international development are in the main well-conducted but have "some concerns" about threats to validity, usually arising due to the methods of outcomes data collection. Most internal replication studies report on a range of different specifications for both the benchmark estimate and the nonrandomised replication estimate. We extracted and standardised 604 bias coefficient effect sizes from these studies, and present average results narratively.Objective 2: RDDs are characterised by prospective assignment of participants based on a threshold variable. Our review of the literature indicated there are two main types of RDD. The most common type of RDD is designed retrospectively in which the researcher identifies post-hoc the relationship between outcomes and a threshold variable which determines assignment to intervention at pretest. These designs usually draw on routine data collection such as administrative records or household surveys. The other, less common, type is a prospective design where the researcher is also involved in allocating participants to treatment groups from the outset. We developed a risk of bias tool for RDDs. Conclusions: Internal study replications provide the grounds on which bias assessment tools can be evidenced. We conclude that existing risk of bias tools needs to be further developed for use by Campbell collaboration authors, and there is a wide range of risk of bias tools and internal study replications to draw on in better designing these tools. We have suggested the development of a promising approach for RDD. Further work is needed on common methodologies in programme evaluation, for example on statistical matching approaches. We also highlight that broader efforts to identify all existing internal replication studies should consider more specialised systematic search strategies within particular literatures; so as to overcome a lack of systematic indexing of this evidence.