Association between birth interval and wasting in children under 5 years of age in Ethiopia: a systematic review and meta-analysis protocol
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Introduction According to the UNICEF, WHO and World Bank joint estimation, 1 in every 13 children suffered from wasting globally. The highest burden of undernutrition recorded in Asia and Africa. Wasting remains a considerable public health problem in Ethiopia despite the introduction of exhaustive nutritional programmes. As reported in the literature, the prevalence of wasting in Ethiopia has remained high over the last four decades. In Ethiopia, more than one-third of child deaths are associated with malnutrition. The current nutritional interventions implemented in Ethiopia need to be evidence based. For this purpose, systematic review is preferable as it can present a more reliable and precise estimate than individual studies. The aim of this review is to assess the pooled prevalence of wasting and its association with birth interval in Ethiopia. Methodology Studies published after 20 January 2012 will be retrieved from databases, mainly PubMed/Medline, Scopus, Embase, CINAHL and HINARI. The articles retrieved from databases will be selected after reading the title, abstract and full text. Three reviewers will independently assess the quality of each study using both the Joanna Briggs Institute and Ottawa Scale critical appraisal checklists. The Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses checklist will be used to maintain scientific strength. Funnel plots, Egger’s test and Begg’s test will be used to deal with publication bias, and I 2 , forest plots and Cochrane’s Q square statistics will be used for heterogeneity. Potential causes of heterogeneity will be explored through sensitivity and subgroup analyses. Because heterogeneity among studies is inevitable, given the wide geographical area and variety of study designs, the Der-Simonian and Laird random-effects model will be used. The presence of a statistical association between birth interval and wasting will be declared if the p value is <0.05 with the 95% CI. Ethics and dissemination Ethical issues will not be applicable to this review and meta-analysis. This review and meta-analysis will report the pooled prevalence of wasting and its association with birth interval in Ethiopia. Effort will be made to publish the findings in a peer-reviewed journal such as the Ethiopian Journal of Health and Development, and the findings will be presented at national conferences. A hard copy will also be sent to Woldia University and Debre Berhan University.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.050 | 0.055 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.005 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.022 | 0.020 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.011 | 0.009 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.006 |
| Open science | 0.005 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.007 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.048 | 0.004 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".