BACKGROUND: Group trauma-focused cognitive behavior therapy (TF-CBT) is widely used to treat post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) in children and adolescents. However, the available evidence remains unclear. METHOD: PubMed, EMBASE, Cochrane, Web of Science, PsycINFO, CINAHL, ProQuest Dissertations, LILACS, and international trial registers were searched from database inception to April 30, 2022. We included randomized controlled trials (RCTs) that compared TF-CBT with any control condition for treating children and adolescents with PTSD. Analyses were performed using Review Manager version 5.3 and Stata 16.0. The risk of bias was assessed using the Cochrane Risk of Bias 2.0 tool. This study was registered with PROSPERO (CRD42020206096). RESULTS: Eleven RCTs involving 1942 patients were included. Group TF-CBT was significantly more effective than other treatments at post-treatment (standardized mean difference [SMD]: -0.43, 95% confidence interval [CI]: -0.65 to -0.22), follow-up (SMD: -0.33, 95% CI: -0.52 to -0.13), and in relieving depressive symptoms (SMD: -0.29, 95% CI: -0.49 to -0.09), but not in terms of acceptability. Subgroup analyses showed that group TF-CBT was superior to other treatments in studies including children with post-traumatic stress symptoms (PTSS) (SMD: -0.54, 95% CI: -0.79 to -0.28) and psychiatric comorbidities (SMD: -0.48, 95% CI: -0.72 to -0.23). LIMITATIONS: The small sample sizes of identified studies limited some findings. CONCLUSION: When considering effectiveness at post-treatment and follow-up or the reduction of depressive symptoms, group TF-CBT could be a good choice for children and adolescents with PTSD. Among these patients, those with PTSS or psychiatric comorbidities may benefit the most.

BackgroundAn increasing number of systematic reviews (SRs) in the environmental field have been published in recent years as a result of the global concern about the health impacts of air pollution and temperature. However, no study has assessed and compared the methodological and reporting quality of SRs on the health effects of air pollutants and extreme temperatures. This study aims to assess and compare the methodological and reporting quality of SRs on the health effects of ambient air pollutants and extreme temperatures.MethodsPubMed, Embase, the Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature (CINAHL), Cochrane Library, Web of Science, and Epistemonikos databases were searched. Two researchers screened the literature and extracted information independently. The methodological quality of the SRs was assessed through A Measurement Tool to Assess Systematic Reviews 2 (AMSTAR 2). The reporting quality was assessed through Preferred Reporting Items of Systematic reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA).ResultsWe identified 405 SRs (286 for air pollution, 108 for temperature, and 11 for the synergistic effects). The methodological and reporting quality of the included SRs were suboptimal, with major deficiencies in protocol registration. The methodological quality of SRs of air pollutants was better than that of temperature, especially in terms of satisfactory explanations for any heterogeneity (69.6% v. 45.4%). The reporting quality of SRs of air pollution was better than temperature, however, adherence to the reporting of the assessment results of risk of bias in all SRs (53.5% v. 34.3%) was inadequate.ConclusionsMethodological and reporting quality of SRs on the health effect of air pollutants were higher than those of temperatures. However, deficiencies in protocol registration and the assessment of risk of bias remain an issue for both pollutants and temperatures. In addition, developing a risk-of-bias assessment tool applicable to the temperature field may improve the quality of SRs.

Objectives: To systematically analyze the use of evidence assessment tools in systematic reviews of management and education. Study design and setting: We systematically searched selected literature databases and websites to identify systematic reviews on management and education. We extracted general information of the included studies and information about the evidence assessment tool they applied, including whether it was used for methodological quality assessment, reporting quality assessment or evidence grading, as well as the name, reference, publication year, version and original intended use of the tool, the role of the tool in the systematic review, and whether the quality determination criteria were given. Results: A total of 299 systematic reviews were included, of which only 34.8% used evidence assessment tools. A total of 66 different evidence assessment tools were used, of which Risk of Bias (ROB) and its updated version (n = 16, 15.4%) were the most frequent. The specific roles of the evidence assessment tools were reported clearly in 57 reviews, and 27 reviews used two tools. Conclusion: Evidence assessment tools were seldom used in systematic reviews in social sciences. The understanding and reporting of evidence assessment tools among the researchers and users still needs improvement.