Preterm follow-up review quality was poor

What the study found: The study found that the quality of data on post-discharge follow-up in preterm-born children is poor. It also indicates that preliminary screening can improve efficiency by limiting the time spent assessing low-quality reviews.
Why the authors say this matters: The authors suggest that, because low-quality reviews take time to assess, screening them first may make it more efficient to identify evidence for guideline recommendations on follow-up of preterm-born children.
What the researchers tested: The article is a mapping review focused on identifying and assessing systematic reviews for evidence-based guideline recommendations on follow-up of preterm-born children. It examined reviews in this topic area and used preliminary screening as part of the assessment process.
What worked and what didn't: Preliminary screening was described as helping efficiency by limiting assessment time spent on low-quality reviews. The abstract does not provide more detailed results about specific reviews, tools, or outcomes.
What to keep in mind: The available summary is brief and does not describe detailed methods, the number of reviews, or specific limitations. The conclusions here are limited to what is stated in the title and abstract.

Key points

• The quality of data on post-discharge follow-up in preterm-born children was described as poor.
• The article is a mapping review of systematic reviews for guideline recommendations.
• Preliminary screening was said to improve efficiency by reducing time spent on low-quality reviews.
• The abstract does not give detailed results about individual reviews or methods.
• Specific limitations are not described in the available summary.