A systematic review in children: challenging in some aspects.

a abstract of systematic review said "Background Few longitudinal studies of children have taken place in the developing world, despite child mortality being concentrated there. This review summaries the methodologies and main outcomes of longitudinal studies of pre-school children (0 to 59 months) in the World Health Organization’s South East Asia (SEA) and Eastern Mediterranean (EM) Regions. Methods A systematic search of literature using pre-defined criteria revealed 7863 papers. After application of quality criteria, 120 studies were selected for analysis. Results The search revealed 83 studies in the SEA region and 37 in the EM region, of which 92 were community-based and 8 facility based. Objectives were diverse but topics included growth (n = 49 studies), mortality (n = 28), nutrition (n = 24), and infectious diseases (n = 33). Only 12 studies focused on non-communicable diseases. Duration ranged from 7 to 384 months. Measurements included anthropometric (n = 56 studies), socioeconomic (n = 50) and biological sampling (n = 25), but only one study was DNA-based. Conclusion Biobanks have emerged as the most successful approach to generating knowledge about disease causes and mechanisms. Little of this is possible to undertake in the in SEA or EM regions, however. Further longitudinal studies of young children with DNA sampling should be set up to better understand determinants of diseases in low income countries" (McKinnon & Campbell, 2011)

some chalenging topics are:

Surprisingly, it was found 3 studies in Thailand and neighboring countries. It might be different definition of South East Asia. Since we know that South East Asia regions have 10 countries, this study may include Bangladesh, India, Iran, and Pakistan within this article broader definitions of South East Asia countries. 

Moreover, the authors choose only south East Asia and Eastern Mediterranean area because they write on their first objective that they would like to review for SEA and EM offices of World Health Organization(WHO). This is not fair for other systematic reviews, which always review all regions in the world. This aspect might be alternative aspect that I have never seen.

Are those birth cohort studies benefit for biobank? Why these authors really concern on genetic perspective?  It seem to me that  these authors would like to tell us that the birth cohort studies is purposed for genetic study or this birth cohort studies should emphasize to the future genetic perspective rather than these 4 simple outcomes: growth, nutrition, morbidity and mortality. It should be gain advantage if researches can give more recommendation on the genetic and environmental perspectives.

Note: Cartoon write this blog due to her literature review process. She is going to use prospective cohort data which focus  in the idea of morbidity and mortality in the first year of life. She think that this article related to her topic.

References

McKinnon, R., & Campbell, H. (2011). Systematic review of birth cohort studies in South East Asia and Eastern Mediterranean regions. Journal of Global Health, 1(1) Retrieved May 7,2012, from  http://jogh.org/documents/issue201101/10-Article%20McKinnon.pdf.