Search results

AbstractBackgroundThere are few randomized controlled trials (RCTs) in pediatric surgery, and their risk of bias is unknown. There is also little known about the methodological or reporting quality of systematic reviews (with or without meta‐analyses) in pediatric surgery. Therefore, we conducted a cross‐sectional meta‐research study to determine the risk of bias and reporting quality of RCTs and systematic reviews and meta‐analyses in pediatric surgery, and the associations between these outcomes and study characteristics.MethodsWe searched MEDLINE, Embase, Cochrane Library, JBI EBP Database, Centre for Reviews and Dissemination and Web of Science for all RCTs and systematic reviews in pediatric surgery published in 2021. We also searched the 2021 indexes of high‐impact pediatric surgery journals. We assessed the risk of bias and reporting quality of RCTs using the RoB 2 and CONSORT tools respectively. We assessed the same parameters for systematic reviews and meta‐analyses using the ROBIS and Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta‐analyses tools.FindingsWe found 82 RCTs and 289 systematic reviews/meta‐analyses published in 2021. More than half (n = 46, 56%) of RCTs and almost all (n = 278, 96%) systematic reviews and meta‐analyses were at high risk of bias. Only one (1%) RCT and four (1%) systematic reviews and meta‐analyses were adequately reported. Less than half (n = 40, 49%) of RCTs and just over a quarter (n = 77, 27%) of systematic reviews and meta‐analyses had a registered protocol. Surprisingly, we found that more than half of systematic reviews and meta‐analyse (n = 162, 56.1%), had no risk of bias assessment.ConclusionsRecently published RCTs and systematic reviews in pediatric surgery are at high risk of bias and have poor reporting quality. Journals, universities, and research institutions should train authors to conduct and report higher quality studies and develop strategies to reduce risk of bias. However, research with high bias and low reporting does not necessarily lack value.

Source separation is regarded as a best practice for sustainable waste management, which is essential for a transition to a circular economy to recover value from waste. However, its implementation in China has faced many difficulties which are primarily inherent in the public's behaviour towards source separation of household waste. Based on multiple cases of innovative use of the Internet of Things (IoT) technologies in China in recent years, this study establishes the concept of IoT-enabled accountability in household waste source separation by utilising the lens of accountability theory. Moreover, this research advances several propositions on the multiple dimensions of accountability mechanism to influence user behaviours. The study's findings provide guidance to governments, technology providers and waste management organisations on the use of IoT-based technological solutions for sustainable waste management. It stimulates future research on the use of IoT technologies in managing people's behaviour in a range of contexts beyond waste management alone. The study contributes to the growing literature on smart waste management.