Background Literature searches underlie the foundations of systematic reviews and related review types. Yet, the literature searching component of systematic reviews and related review types is often poorly reported. Guidance for literature search reporting has been diverse, and, in many cases, does not offer enough detail to authors who need more specific information about reporting search methods and information sources in a clear, reproducible way. This document presents the PRISMA-S (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analyses literature search extension) checklist, and explanation and elaboration. Methods The checklist was developed using a 3-stage Delphi survey process, followed by a consensus conference and public review process. Results The final checklist includes 16 reporting items, each of which is detailed with exemplar reporting and rationale. Conclusions The intent of PRISMA-S is to complement the PRISMA Statement and its extensions by providing a checklist that could be used by interdisciplinary authors, editors, and peer reviewers to verify that each component of a search is completely reported and therefore reproducible.

No abstract

Research about enhancing women's confidence for labor and birth was limited to qualitative studies. Results suggest that women desire information during pregnancy and want to use that information to participate in care decisions in a relationship with a trusted provider. Further research is needed to develop interventions to help midwives and physicians enhance women's confidence in their ability to give birth and to develop a tool to measure confidence for use during prenatal care.

BackgroundThere has been a recent, rapid increase in the number of studies of children with medical complexity (CMC) and their families. There is a need for attention to gaps and patterns in this emerging field of study.ObjectivesThe purpose of this scoping review was to identify patterns and gaps in the evidence related to classification systems, data, and outcomes in studies of CMC.Data SourcesWe searched peer‐reviewed journals for reports of quantitative studies focused on CMC outcomes published between 2008 and 2018. On the basis of a structured screening process, we selected 63 reports that met our inclusion criteria.Study Appraisal and SynthesisWe used the methodological framework for scoping studies described by Arskey and O'Malley to map relevant literature in the field and the ECHO model to categorize studies according to three health outcome domains (economic, clinical, and humanistic).ResultsThe terminology used to describe and classify CMC differed across studies depending on outcome domain. Two thirds of the reports focused on economic outcomes; fewer than a quarter included child or family quality of life as an outcome. A majority of studies used a single source of data, with robust analyses of administrative, payer, and publicly available data.Conclusions and Implications of Key FindingsResearch on CMC and their families would benefit from standardization of terms and classification systems, the use of measurement strategies that map humanistic outcomes as trajectories, and more attention to outcomes identified as most meaningful to CMC and their families.

No abstract