Endnote x20

All retrieved articles were imported from each database into EndNote X20 (Clarivate Analytics, USA) and sorted and ordering in a scientific and organised manner [24 ]. After removing duplicates, the first author, NFE, reviewed the study titles and screened all the publications. Following this initial screening, the second phase involved reading the abstracts and to identify the eligible studies. The third and final screening involved reading the full texts and ensuring each study met the eligibility criteria.
The identified studies are listed in Table 1, with the following information: The author, year of publication, geographic region, year of data collection, number of children and age, sample strategy, study design, population characteristics, and quality assessment score. In S4 Table, the included literature was classified according to the country of study and the prevalence of the three indices of undernutrition.

The following three databases were searched from January 1, 2019, through June 9, 2023: LitCOVID, PubMed, Embase. Full database search strategy can be found in S1 Table. In addition to database searches, secondary searches were performed within Web of Science to identify potential reviews that met the eligibility criteria. We manually screened the reference lists of systematic reviews and searched Google Scholar.
Database search results were imported into a reference manager (EndNote X20; Clarivate Analytics) for deduplication, then uploaded into Covidence (Covidence, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia) screening software to remove additional duplicates. An initial pilot was performed to screen title/abstract and full text articles, and any revisions to the search strategy were recorded. Dual screening of both title/abstract and full text was conducted by two reviewers (MH and OA) independently. Any disagreements were resolved by a third reviewer (DP).

All articles identified from the search from the databases were exported to a reference manager software called Endnote X20 (Clarivate Analytics, Philadelphia, PA, USA). Duplicates were removed, all references were then exported to another reference management software called Covidence (Veritas Health Innovation, Melbourne, Australia). Articles were first screened by text and abstract, those who were deemed relevant underwent a full-text review. The articles were screened against the inclusion-exclusion criteria by two independent reviewers (N.A and A.M), discrepancies between reviewers were then resolved by a discussion.
Studies that included participants under the age of 18 were contacted asking for data specific to the population of interest. A few articles did not specify whether the injury was acute or chronic, thus the authors of these articles were contacted for further information.