Reporting medical research

Exploring the dimensions of responsible research systems and cultures: a scoping review

The responsible conduct of research is foundational to the production of valid and trustworthy research. Despite this, our grasp of what dimensions responsible conduct of research (RCR) might contain-and how it differs across disciplines (i.e. how it is conceptualized and operationalized)-is tenuous. Moreover, many initiatives related to developing and maintaining RCR are developed within disciplinary and institutional silos which naturally limits the benefits that RCR practice can have. To this end, we are working to develop a better understanding of how RCR is conceived and realized, both across disciplines and across institutions in Europe. The first step in doing this is to scope existing knowledge on the topic, of which this scoping review is a part. We searched several electronic databases for relevant published and grey literature. An initial sample of 715 articles was identified, with 75 articles included in the final sample for qualitative analysis. We find several dimensions of RCR that are underemphasized or are excluded from the well-established World Conferences on Research Integrity (WCRI) Singapore Statement on Research Integrity and explore facets of these dimensions that find special relevance in a range of research disciplines.

[Extensions of guidelines for reporting types of study in medicine]

The use of different guides to report types of study in the medical field has been widely disseminated for decades, however, their adherence and use by an important part of researchers is still limited, this has negatively impacted the dissemination of new findings, which has generated criticism regarding how medical research is designed, conducted and reported. Parallel to this, there are extensions to these guidelines which are little known and used by the personnel involved in research work, they focus on more specific approaches to report different types of studies, among which are: meta-analysis, systematic reviews, clinical trials randomized, diagnostic accuracy studies, observational studies, among others; for this reason, its promotion, knowledge, and use is of vital importance. The objective of this review is to synthesize the main extensions of the guidelines used in medical research; for this purpose, its main characteristics were reviewed, as well as application scenarios according to the level of evidence; Its adequate adherence will allow health personnel involved in research work to increase the transparency and quality of their findings, contemplate potential sources of bias, as well as the development of good practices for the presentation of their results according to the type of study selected.

Open science practices in general and internal medicine journals, an observational study

BACKGROUND

As part of the Open Science movement, this study aims to analyze the current state of open access and open data policies concerning the availability of articles and raw data of the journals belonging to the category "Medicine, General & Internal" of the Science Citation Index Expanded.

METHODS

Journal data sharing policies were evaluated through the following variables: possibility of manuscript storage in repositories; reuse policy; publication on a website; and statement regarding complementary material. Subsequently, an analysis of the supplementary material associated with each article was performed through the PubMed Central repository. The study reported was assessed following the STROBE guidelines for observational studies.

RESULTS

This study shows that only one-third of the journals included in the category "Medicine, General & Internal" allow the depositing of their documents in repositories and its reuse, while approximately half of the journals agree to publish the document on a website as well as to deposit supplementary material along with the publication. However, the reality about this last variable is that only 9.5% of the articles analyzed contained supplementary material being the main journals involved, BMJ Open, JAMA Network Open, New England Journal of Medicine, Lancet and Plos Medicine.

CONCLUSIONS

The analysis of the opening policies of the journals concerning data availability in medical research reveals the unequal positioning of publishers towards the sharing of open data, the ambiguity regarding government policies about the obligation to deposit data and the need for ethical and standardization requirements in the typology/format of the data deposited without forgetting the important role that the researcher plays. Further studies based on journals indexed in medical databases other than Science Citation Index Expanded are needed.

Guidance relevant to the reporting of health equity in observational research: a scoping review protocol

INTRODUCTION

Health inequities are defined as unfair and avoidable differences in health between groups within a population. Most health research is conducted through observational studies, which are able to offer real-world insights about etiology, healthcare policy/programme effectiveness and the impacts of socioeconomic factors. However, most published reports of observational studies do not address how their findings relate to health equity. Our team seeks to develop equity-relevant reporting guidance as an extension of the Strengthening the Reporting of Observational Studies in Epidemiology (STROBE) statement. This scoping review will inform the development of candidate items for the STROBE-Equity extension. We will operationalise equity-seeking populations using the PROGRESS-Plus framework of sociodemographic factors. As part of a parallel stream of the STROBE-Equity project, the relevance of candidate guideline items to Indigenous research will be led by Indigenous coinvestigators on the team.

METHODS AND ANALYSIS

We will follow the Joanna Briggs Institute method for conducting scoping reviews. We will evaluate the extent to which the identified guidance supports or refutes our preliminary candidate items for reporting equity in observational studies. These candidate items were developed based on items from equity-reporting guidelines for randomised trials and systematic reviews, developed by members of this team. We will consult with our knowledge users, patients/public partners and Indigenous research steering committee to invite suggestions for relevant guidance documents and interpretation of findings. If the identified guidance suggests the need for additional candidate items, they will be developed through inductive thematic analysis.

ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION

We will follow a principled approach that promotes ethical codevelopment with our community partners, based on principles of cultural safety, authentic partnerships, addressing colonial structures in knowledge production and the shared ownership, interpretation, and dissemination of research. All products of this research will be published as open access.

AI in medical physics: guidelines for publication

The Abstract is intended to provide a concise summary of the study and its scientific findings. For AI/ML applications in medical physics, a problem statement and rationale for utilizing these algorithms are necessary while highlighting the novelty of the approach. A brief numerical description of how the data are partitioned into subsets for training of the AI/ML algorithm, validation (including tuning of parameters), and independent testing of algorithm performance is required. This is to be followed by a summary of the results and statistical metrics that quantify the performance of the AI/ML algorithm.

A scoping review on biomedical journal peer review guides for reviewers

Background

Peer review is widely used in academic fields to assess a manuscript’s significance and to improve its quality for publication. This scoping review will assess existing peer review guidelines and/or checklists intended for reviewers of biomedical journals and provide an overview on the review guidelines.

Methods

PubMed, Embase, and Allied and Complementary Medicine (AMED) databases were searched for review guidelines from the date of inception until February 19, 2021. There was no date restriction nor article type restriction. In addition to the database search, websites of journal publishers and non-publishers were additionally hand-searched.

Results

Of 14,633 database publication records and 24 website records, 65 publications and 14 websites met inclusion criteria for the review (78 records in total). From the included records, a total of 1,811 checklist items were identified. The items related to Methods, Results, and Discussion were found to be the highly discussed in reviewer guidelines.

Conclusion

This review identified existing literature on peer review guidelines and provided an overview of the current state of peer review guides. Review guidelines were varying by journals and publishers. This calls for more research to determine the need to use uniform review standards for transparent and standardized peer review.

Protocol registration

The protocol for this study has been registered at Research Registry (www.researchregistry.com): reviewregistry881.

Standardization of patient outcomes reporting in percutaneous nephrolithotomy

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE

There exist no global standards for defining patient outcomes in renal stone surgery. The objective of this study was to evaluate the quality of reporting of outcomes in studies investigating percutaneous nephrolithotomy (PCNL) and to propose standardized consensus definitions for common outcomes.

METHODS

We performed a literature search in PubMed for randomized controlled studies that investigated PCNL between 2002 and 2012. All outcomes reported were analyzed for each study. Each article was examined to identify the definition of each reported patient outcome. Various aspects of patient outcomes were presented to a panel of 85 experts in a Delphi process consisting of three rounds. The experts were asked to select options that they believed would best describe each outcome. Finally, we composed recommendations for definition of the most common outcomes reported in PCNL studies.

RESULTS

Eighty-three RCTs were included in the review of patient outcomes. Stone-free rate (55, 63.9%), length of stay (47, 56.6%), complication rate (44, 53.0%), and changes in hemoglobin (40, 48.2%) were the most frequently reported outcomes in randomized controlled trials of PCNL. Only 24/53 (45.3%) studies had a formal definition of stone-free status. Only 31/40 (77.5%) studies, which reported change in hemoglobin, had a unit of measurement; however, 22/40 (55.0%) did not report the timing of postoperative hemoglobin measurement. A set of recommendations for defining patient outcomes in PCNL is presented for the 15 most commonly reported outcomes in PCNL.

CONCLUSIONS

Wide variations and underspecification exist in the definition and reporting of outcomes in PCNL. We propose recommendations for the definition of outcomes based on a review of the literature and expert opinion. Standardization of outcome definition and reporting will improve the quality of urologic research.

Conflicts of interest in biomedical publications: considerations for authors, peer reviewers, and editors

This article overviews evidence on common instances of conflict of interest (COI) in research publications from general and specialized fields of biomedicine. Financial COIs are viewed as the most powerful source of bias, which may even distort citation outcomes of sponsored publications. The urge to boost journal citation indicators by stakeholders of science communication is viewed as a new secondary interest, which may compromize the interaction between authors, peer reviewers and editors. Comprehensive policies on disclosure of financial and non-financial COIs in scholarly journals are presented as proxies of their indexing in evidence-based databases, and examples of successful medical journals are discussed in detail. Reports on clinical trials, systematic reviews, meta-analyses and clinical practice guidelines may be unduly influenced by author-pharmaceutical industry relations, but these publications do not always contain explicit disclosures to allow the readers to judge the reliability of the published conclusions and practice-changing recommendations. The article emphasizes the importance of adhering to the guidance on COI from learned associations such as the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors (ICMJE). It also considers joint efforts of authors, peer reviewers and editors as a foundation for appropriately defining and disclosing potential COIs.