Introduction: During pandemics, there is uncertainty and information overload. Policymakers and health professionals prefer to use summarized evidence of practice recommendations. The aim of this scoping review is therefore to identify available guidelines, consensus statements, the standard of practice and practice recommendations on reproductive health service provision during the COVID-19 pandemics. Methods: We searched guideline databases and websites of professional associations and international organizations working on sexual and reproductive health. We looked for guidelines, protocols, consensus statements and practice recommendations on sexual reproductive health services (SRH) during COVID-19 pandemics. Additionally, we searched: MEDLINE, EMBASE and Google Scholar. Data extraction was done by two independent reviewers using a customized tool that was developed to record the key information of the source that's relevant to the review question. The difference between the two authors on data extraction was resolved by discussion. Results: A total of 20 records were included in the review. Identified recommendations were classified into thematic areas. The records addressed approaches to the antenatal care, labour and delivery, postnatal care, safe abortion, contraception, gender-based violence and artificial reproduction. We haven't employed any of the quality assessment tools as the pandemic is new clinical entity and evidences are based on expert opinion and limited clinical evidence. Conclusions: There were consistent consensus statements and recommendations that there should be access to sexual and reproductive health services like antenatal care(ANC), postnatal care(PNC), contraception service, safe abortion care and clinical management of rape survivors during the COVID-19 pandemics with the concerted effort of service reorganization. The practice recommendations focus on innovative ways of service provision to minimize patient and staff exposure to COVID-19 as well as alleviate the burden on the health care system. These include utilizing telemedicine or digital health and community/home-based care or self-care.

No abstract

Flaws in the design, conduct, analysis, and reporting of randomised trials can cause the effect of an intervention to be underestimated or overestimated. The Cochrane Collaboration’s tool for assessing risk of bias aims to make the process clearer and more accurate

No abstract

Systematic reviews and meta-analyses are essential to summarize evidence relating to efficacy and safety of health care interventions accurately and reliably. The clarity and transparency of these reports, however, is not optimal. Poor reporting of systematic reviews diminishes their value to clinicians, policy makers, and other users. Since the development of the QUOROM (QUality Of Reporting Of Meta-analysis) Statement--a reporting guideline published in 1999--there have been several conceptual, methodological, and practical advances regarding the conduct and reporting of systematic reviews and meta-analyses. Also, reviews of published systematic reviews have found that key information about these studies is often poorly reported. Realizing these issues, an international group that included experienced authors and methodologists developed PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analyses) as an evolution of the original QUOROM guideline for systematic reviews and meta-analyses of evaluations of health care interventions. The PRISMA Statement consists of a 27-item checklist and a four-phase flow diagram. The checklist includes items deemed essential for transparent reporting of a systematic review. In this Explanation and Elaboration document, we explain the meaning and rationale for each checklist item. For each item, we include an example of good reporting and, where possible, references to relevant empirical studies and methodological literature. The PRISMA Statement, this document, and the associated Web site (http://www.prisma-statement.org/) should be helpful resources to improve reporting of systematic reviews and meta-analyses.