Transparent reporting of research results in eLife.

Manuscripts should include all the experimental and statistical details that are needed to replicate the experiments and analyses reported in them

Maternal and Child Oral Health Interventions in Middle East and North Africa Regions:a rapid review

Objectives: To conduct a rapid review to identify any maternal and/or child oral health interventions implemented and/or tested in Middle East and North Africa (MENA) countries generally, and Lebanon, Palestine and Syria specifically, and to compile information on the relative effectiveness of these interventions. Methods: A systematic search was conducted for primary and secondary literature indexed in five online databases, and the websites of the World Health Organisation (WHO), the International Union for Health Promotion and Education (IUHPE), the United Nations Children’s Fund (UNICEF), United Nations Relief and Works Agency for Palestine Refugees in the Near East (UNRWA), and the United Nations Refugee Agency (UNHCR). Results: Two independent researchers reviewed 1,180 records from the online databases, and 3,120 reports from the WHO, UNRWA, UNICEF and UNHCR. Four unique studies were included and conducted in Syria, Saudi Arabia and Iran. No systematic reviews were found for targeted interventions in MENA regions. However, interventions using fluoridated toothpaste (Syria), preventive treatment and fluoridated chewing gum (Saudi Arabia), and oral health education with oral health reminders (Iran) were significantly effective in reducing early child caries (ECC) experience. In Syria and Iran, mother and child oral health promotions integrated into ongoing vaccination programmes were effective in reducing ECC. These interventions formed part of WHO and Ministry of Health programmes. Conclusion: Further investigation is essential to verify the effectiveness of incorporating multi-disciplinary, theory-driven oral health interventions into ongoing WHO maternal and child health programmes in MENA countries to assist in promoting oral health and wellbeing

Systematic review of the methodological and reporting quality of case series in surgery

Case series are an important and common study type. No guideline exists for reporting case series and there is evidence of key data being missed from such reports. The first step in the process of developing a methodologically sound reporting guideline is a systematic review of literature relevant to the reporting deficiencies of case series.A systematic review of methodological and reporting quality in surgical case series was performed. The electronic search strategy was developed by an information specialist and included MEDLINE, Embase, Cochrane Methods Register, Science Citation Index and Conference Proceedings Citation index, from the start of indexing to 5 November 2014. Independent screening, eligibility assessments and data extraction were performed. Included articles were then analysed for five areas of deficiency: failure to use standardized definitions, missing or selective data (including the omission of whole cases or important variables), transparency or incomplete reporting, whether alternative study designs were considered, and other issues.Database searching identified 2205 records. Through the process of screening and eligibility assessments, 92 articles met inclusion criteria. Frequencies of methodological and reporting issues identified were: failure to use standardized definitions (57 per cent), missing or selective data (66 per cent), transparency or incomplete reporting (70 per cent), whether alternative study designs were considered (11 per cent) and other issues (52 per cent).The methodological and reporting quality of surgical case series needs improvement. The data indicate that evidence-based guidelines for the conduct and reporting of case series may be useful