In Reply We thank Cristea et al for their careful reading of our meta-analysis of school-based interventions for bullying prevention.1 Cristea et al state that 85% of the included trials evaluated universal prevention and should have ideally included a measure of risk reduction, such as incident or recurrent cases. However, more than 85% of those studies did not report such measures. Although our comprehensive approach is subject to some limitations, the exclusion of such studies would substantially limit the generalizability of our findings.
Identify all potential conflicts of interest that might be relevant to your comment.
Conflicts of interest comprise financial interests, activities, and relationships within the past 3 years including but not limited to employment, affiliation, grants or funding, consultancies, honoraria or payment, speaker's bureaus, stock ownership or options, expert testimony, royalties, donation of medical equipment, or patents planned, pending, or issued.
Err on the side of full disclosure.
If you have no conflicts of interest, check "No potential conflicts of interest" in the box below. The information will be posted with your response.
Not all submitted comments are published. Please see our commenting policy for details.
Fraguas D, Díaz-Caneja CM, Arango C. Methodologic and Reporting Issues in Published Meta-analysis—Reply. JAMA Pediatr. 2021;175(6):644–645. doi:10.1001/jamapediatrics.2021.0013
Coronavirus Resource Center
Customize your JAMA Network experience by selecting one or more topics from the list below.