Asthma is a leading cause of morbidity and healthcare use among children. Risk factors of childhood asthma include atopic predisposition and severe wheezing episodes caused by rhinovirus infection in early life. In children with first-time rhinovirus-induced wheezing, we aim to study the response of a short corticosteroid treatment to prevent recurrent wheezing and asthma.

This is a double-blind, randomised, placebo-controlled, phase IV, international multicentre trial involving eight sites in Norway, Sweden and Finland. Two hundred and eighty 3–23 months old steroid-naïve children are randomised 1:1 to receive oral dexamethasone (0.3 mg/kg/day) versus placebo in 3 days for their first wheezing episode and rhinovirus infection. Rhinovirus is diagnosed with multiplex PCR. The two co-primary outcomes are time to next physician-confirmed wheezing episode, and time to asthma, within 24 months from inclusion. Asthma is defined as fulfilment of the 2007 National Asthma Education and Prevention Program—criteria for initiating asthma controller medication in children aged 0–4 years. Primary interaction analyses are age, gender, atopic predisposition, risk genotypes and viral co-detection. The optimal cut-off on the rhinovirus genome load used to define a true rhinovirus infection will be assessed by exploring interactions between rhinovirus genomic loads and study drug on the co-primary outcomes. Secondary outcomes are number of wheezing episodes, duration and severity of each wheezing episode, bronchial hyperreactivity, quality of life and safety (height/weight development) at 24 months from inclusion.

Rhinovirus positive children with acute wheezing fulfilling inclusion and exclusion criteria are enrolled after informed consent from both caregivers. This trial has received ethical approval from all sites. Results will be submitted to Competent Authorities and disseminated via peer-reviewed publications and conferences within paediatrics and other relevant fields. If proven effective, findings may be implemented directly into paediatric clinical guidelines.

NCT03889743.

Peripheral artery disease (PAD) is a chronic condition causing arterial narrowing or blockage, leading to significant morbidity and mortality. Hybrid revascularisation combines open surgical and endovascular techniques to manage multilevel disease by addressing inflow and outflow obstructions. Despite increasing adoption, evidence on the long-term outcomes of these procedures remains limited.

To evaluate the long-term outcomes of hybrid revascularisation procedures in PAD, including patency rates, limb salvage, survival, reintervention rates and complications, and to provide evidence-based insights for clinical practice and research.

This review will follow the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines. It will include randomised controlled trials, cohort studies, case-control studies and large case series (≥10 patients, with at least 1 year of follow-up) assessing adult patients undergoing hybrid revascularisation for PAD. Primary outcomes are patency rates, limb salvage and survival; secondary outcomes include complication rates, functional improvements and quality of life. Searches will be conducted in PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Library, CINAHL and ClinicalTrials.gov. Study selection, data extraction and quality assessment will be performed independently in duplicate by two reviewers. Meta-analyses with random-effects models will summarise findings where feasible, while narrative synthesis will address instances of insufficient data. Subgroup analyses will explore outcomes by demographics, lesion characteristics and procedural details. Risk of bias will be assessed using Cochrane and Newcastle-Ottawa tools.

Ethical approval is not required. Findings will be published in peer-reviewed journals and presented at conferences.

CRD42024615809.

Type 1 diabetes is a chronic autoimmune disease that often presents with diabetic ketoacidosis at diagnosis. Since detection of type 1 diabetes risk is possible using genetic risk scores and autoantibody assays, prevention of diabetic ketoacidosis or delayed onset of type 1 diabetes may be possible and may improve outcomes. Several pilot screening programmes for type 1 diabetes risk have emerged worldwide but outcomes measured in these screening programmes are heterogeneous, making it difficult to compare and synthesise findings across studies. To improve the standardisation of outcome reporting and measurement, we aim to develop a patient-oriented core outcome set for studies of type 1 diabetes risk screening.

This five-step protocol was developed in alignment with the COS-STAndardised Protocol Statement and the Core Outcome Measures in Effectiveness Trials framework. The five steps will include: (1a) conducting a rapid literature review, (1b) gathering input on candidate outcomes from members of the public, (2) combining literature and public input to prepare a preliminary list of outcomes, (3) conducting Delphi surveys with a range of stakeholders to begin to establish consensus on outcomes, (4) holding a final consensus meeting to establish consensus on outcomes and (5) establishing the outcome measurement instruments for the core outcome set.

Ethics approval has been provided by The Hospital for Sick Children Research Ethics Board. The core outcome set will be distributed to researchers and clinicians involved in diabetes screening and clinical care, patient and family networks, research funders, journal editors, public health experts, and policymakers. Disseminated materials will be tailored to the various end users in the form of publication through academic journals, policy briefs, conferences, educational webinars, websites and social media.

Valid and reliable measurement of early childhood development (ECD) is critical for monitoring and evaluating ECD-related policies and programmes. Although ECD tools developed in high-income countries may be applicable to low- and middle-income countries (LMICs), directly applying them in LMICs can be problematic without psychometric evidence for new cultures and contexts. Our objective was to systematically appraise available evidence on the psychometric properties of tools used to measure ECD in LMIC.

A systematic review following the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines.

MEDLINE, Embase, PubMed, PsycInfo, SciELO and BVS were searched from inception to February 2025.

We included studies that examined the reliability, validity, and measurement invariance of tools assessing ECD in children 0–6 years of age living in LMICs.

Each study was independently screened by two researchers and data extracted by one randomly assigned researcher. Risk of bias was assessed using a checklist developed by the study team assessing bias due to training/administration, selective reporting and missing data. Results were synthesised narratively by country, location, age group at assessment and developmental domain.

A total of 160 articles covering 117 tools met inclusion criteria. Most reported psychometric properties were internal consistency reliability (n=117, 64%), concurrent validity (n=81, 45%), convergent validity (n=74, 41%), test–retest reliability (n=73, 40%) and structural validity (n=72, 40%). Measurement invariance was least commonly reported (n=16, 9%). Most articles came from Brazil, China, India and South Africa. Most psychometric evidence was from urban (n=92, 51%) or urban–rural (n=41, 23%) contexts. Study samples focused on children aged 6–17.9 or 48–59.9 months. The most assessed developmental domains were language (n=111, 61%), motor (n=104, 57%) and cognitive (n=82, 45%). Bias due to missing data was most common.

Psychometric evidence is fragmented, limited and heterogeneous. More rigorous psychometric analyses, especially on measurement invariance, are needed to establish the quality and accuracy of ECD tools for use in LMICs.

CRD42022372305.