Child and youth experiences and perspectives of cerebral palsy: a qualitative systematic review: letter to the editor

Response to Boyd letter

“…My review had additional reviewers who independently screened articles for inclusion and extract data, which was noted in the article. I recognize that some of Boyd et al's () concern about other's contributions may have been a result of the journal not publishing the acknowledgements section. Boyd et al () also expressed concerns about the credibility of single‐authored review papers, which are common in many disciplines and particularly in the social sciences.…”

“…I recognize that some of Boyd et al's () concern about other's contributions may have been a result of the journal not publishing the acknowledgements section. Boyd et al () also expressed concerns about the credibility of single‐authored review papers, which are common in many disciplines and particularly in the social sciences. In fact, there are several single‐authored systematic reviews within this and other reputable journals.…”

“…Boyd et al () are correct in pointing out that quality assessment and risk of bias are different. It is important to note, however, that they are drawing on references referring to quantitative, intervention‐based review methodology and not qualitative review methodology.…”

“…Boyd et al () are correct in stating that it is important to critically examine your own role and how biases may influence your work. I carefully considered this and it is noted in the audit trail.…”

“…Boyd et al highlight another important issue within conducting systematic reviews which is that having two reviewers lowers the risk of bias and errors. My review had additional reviewers who independently screened articles for inclusion and extract data, which was noted in the article.…”