Infant and toddler food (ITF), including powdered infant and follow-up formula (PIFF) and complementary food (CF), provides the majority of early-life nutrients for young children. As infants and toddlers are more vulnerable to foodborne diseases, the safety concern of ITF is the ultimate priority. However, nationwide surveillance for the presence of hazards, specifically microbiological hazards, in the Chinese ITF is partially known, posing a significant knowledge gap for risk ranking. Most importantly, the related regional surveys were largely published in Chinese, making the data unavailable for global sharing. To bridge these gaps, we screened 5,306 publications and conducted a comprehensive meta-analysis for microbiological hazards using 129 qualified studies. The four most reported microbiological hazards in ITF were Bacillus cereus (13.4 %), Cronobacter (4.8 %), Staphylococcus aureus (1.3 %), and Salmonella (1.1 %). B. cereus is a risk factor in ITF, specifically in PIFF, cereals, and ready-to-eat food. The prevalence of B. cereus was high in Northern and Southern China, while the prevalence of Cronobacter was high in Central China. Cronobacter is a microbiological hazard, specifically in PIFF, with a prevalence of 3.0 %. Interestingly, the prevalence dynamics of Cronobacter and B. cereus in ITF were rising and stable, respectively, whereas the prevalence of S. aureus and Salmonella decreased over time. Together, our analysis will promote the global sharing of these critical findings and may guide future policy making.

Objectives: To examine the characteristics, methodological and reporting quality of systematic reviews and meta-analyses in social science journals in China. Study Design and Setting: The Chinese Social Sciences Citation Index (CSSCI) databases were searched for systematic reviews and meta-analysis published between January 2000 and December 2019. We randomly selected 200 articles from the 401 identified in our search. The Assessing the Methodological Quality of Systematic Reviews (AMSTAR) and the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses (PRISMA) checklists were used to assess the methodological and reporting quality, respectively. Results: The 200 articles we selected covered a wide range of research fields in 9 disciplines, most of which belonged to management, education and psychology. The mean AMSTAR score and PRISMA score was 8.99 +/- 3.36 points and 14.74 +/- 3.96 points, respectively. These findings indicated that the quality of the systematic reviews was below the average level. Meanwhile, year of publication was related to both methodological quality (P = 0.001) and reporting quality (P < 0.01). Conclusion: Although many systematic reviews and meta-analysis have been published in top Chinese journals, the methodological and reporting quality is troubling. Thus, the most urgent task is to increase the standard of systematic reviews and meta-analysis of every discipline rather than continuing to publish them in great quantity. (C) 2021 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.