Does use of the CONSORT Statement impact the completeness of reporting of randomised controlled trials published in medical journals? A Cochrane review

Efficacy and safety of different pharmacological interventions in the treatment of tardive dyskinesia: a systematic review and network meta-analysis

OBJECTIVES

The aim of this study is to indirectly compare and rank the different drugs that have been studied in randomized clinical trials (RCTs) in patients with tardive dyskinesia (TD) in terms of their efficacy in ameliorating the symptoms of TD and safety.

DESIGN

A network meta-analysis and a systematic review were registered prospectively on PROSPERO under the ID: CRD42023407823 and were conducted in accordance with the PRISMA-NMA guidelines.

DATA SOURCES

PubMed, Scopus, The Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), Web of Sciences, and Clinicaltrials.gov were searched to identify relevant records.

ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA FOR SELECTING STUDIES

Any parallel randomized blinded controlled clinical trials that studied the use of any medications in treating TD and assessed the symptoms using a functional scale that has been previously validated.

DATA EXTRACTION

The standardized mean difference of improvement along with the reported adverse events for each drug was extracted from each trial, and a network meta-analysis was conducted using a random-effects model.

RESULTS

One thousand eight hundred seventeen patients in 33 RCTs were included in the analysis. Twenty-three different drugs were compared to placebo in terms of reduction in TD symptoms. Among these, valbenazine 80 mg (SMD =  - 1.66, 95%CI = [- 2.55; - 0.78]), valbenazine 40 mg (- 1.00, [- 1.89; - 0.11]), and vitamin E (- 0.77, [- 1.45; - 0.1]) significantly reduced TD symptoms in comparison to placebo, while deutetrabenazine 36 mg (- 1.00, [- 2.12; 0.11]) and reserpine (- 0.54, [- 1.09; 0.02]) did not significantly reduce symptoms. Some serious adverse events were reported for valbenazine and deutetrabenazine, which included mainly psychiatric symptoms such as depression, worsening of schizophrenia, and suicidal ideation, while mild adverse events were reported for other drugs, and their incidence in the treatment arms was comparable to those in the placebo arm.

CONCLUSIONS

Valbenazine (80 and 40 mg) and vitamin E demonstrated efficacy in treating tardive dyskinesia. However, the significant side effects of valbenazine should prompt further investigation of alternative treatment modalities.

A case study of the informative value of risk of bias and reporting quality assessments for systematic reviews

While undisputedly important, and part of any systematic review (SR) by definition, evaluation of the risk of bias within the included studies is one of the most time-consuming parts of performing an SR. In this paper, we describe a case study comprising an extensive analysis of risk of bias (RoB) and reporting quality (RQ) assessment from a previously published review (CRD42021236047). It included both animal and human studies, and the included studies compared baseline diseased subjects with controls, assessed the effects of investigational treatments, or both. We compared RoB and RQ between the different types of included primary studies. We also assessed the "informative value" of each of the separate elements for meta-researchers, based on the notion that variation in reporting may be more interesting for the meta-researcher than consistently high/low or reported/non-reported scores. In general, reporting of experimental details was low. This resulted in frequent unclear risk-of-bias scores. We observed this both for animal and for human studies and both for disease-control comparisons and investigations of experimental treatments. Plots and explorative chi-square tests showed that reporting was slightly better for human studies of investigational treatments than for the other study types. With the evidence reported as is, risk-of-bias assessments for systematic reviews have low informative value other than repeatedly showing that reporting of experimental details needs to improve in all kinds of in vivo research. Particularly for reviews that do not directly inform treatment decisions, it could be efficient to perform a thorough but partial assessment of the quality of the included studies, either of a random subset of the included publications or of a subset of relatively informative elements, comprising, e.g. ethics evaluation, conflicts of interest statements, study limitations, baseline characteristics, and the unit of analysis. This publication suggests several potential procedures.

Evaluating guideline and registration policies among neurology journals: a cross-sectional analysis

BACKGROUND

Neurological disorders have had a substantial rise the last three decades, imposing substantial burdens on both patients and healthcare costs. Consequently, the demand for high-quality research has become crucial for exploring effective treatment options. However, current neurology research has some limitations in terms of transparency, reproducibility, and reporting bias. The adoption of reporting guidelines (RGs) and trial registration policies has been proven to address these issues and improve research quality in other medical disciplines. It is unclear the extent to which these policies are being endorsed by neurology journals. Therefore, our study aims to evaluate the publishing policies of top neurology journals regarding RGs and trial registration.

METHODS

For this cross-sectional study, neurology journals were identified using the 2021 Scopus CiteScore Tool. The top 100 journals were listed and screened for eligibility for our study. In a masked, duplicate fashion, investigators extracted data on journal characteristics, policies on RGs, and policies on trial registration using information from each journal's Instruction for Authors webpage. Additionally, investigators contacted journal editors to ensure information was current and accurate. No human participants were involved in this study. Our data collection and analyses were performed from December 14, 2022, to January 9, 2023.

RESULTS

Of the 356 neurology journals identified, the top 100 were included into our sample. The five-year impact of these journals ranged from 50.844 to 2.226 (mean [SD], 7.82 [7.01]). Twenty-five (25.0%) journals did not require or recommend a single RG within their Instructions for Authors webpage, and a third (33.0%) did not require or recommend clinical trial registration. The most frequently mentioned RGs were CONSORT (64.6%), PRISMA (52.5%), and ARRIVE (53.1%). The least mentioned RG was QUOROM (1.0%), followed by MOOSE (9.0%), and SQUIRE (17.9%).

CONCLUSIONS

While many top neurology journals endorse the use of RGs and trial registries, there are still areas where their adoption can be improved. Addressing these shortcomings leads to further advancements in the field of neurology, resulting in higher-quality research and better outcomes for patients.

Renal effects of selective cyclooxygenase-2 inhibitor anti-inflammatory drugs: A systematic review and meta-analysis

Background

Selective cyclooxygenase-2 inhibitor anti-inflammatory drugs (coxibs) are associated with the development of adverse events, mainly gastrointestinal and cardiovascular, but renal effects are less known.

Objective

To assess the renal risks of coxibs compared to placebo by means of a systematic review and meta-analysis.

Methods

Randomized controlled trials that assessed renal effects of coxibs (celecoxib, etoricoxib, lumiracoxib, parecoxib, and valdecoxib) were searched in PubMed, Embase, Scopus and other sources up to March 2024. Two independent reviewers performed study screening, data extraction, and risk of bias assessment. Random effect meta-analysis was employed to calculate the relative risks (RR) and 95% confidence intervals (CI) of renal effects of coxibs compared to placebo and inconsistency among studies (I 2 ). Certainty of evidence was assessed using the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation approach.

Results

Out of 5284 retrieved records, 49 studies (comprising 46 reports) were included. Coxibs increased the risk of edema (RR 1.46; 95% CI 1.15, 1.86; I 2  = 0%; 34 studies, 19,754 participants; moderate-certainty evidence), and celecoxib increased hypertensive or renal events (RR 1.24; 95% CI 1.08, 1.43; I 2  = 0%; 2 studies, 3589 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). Etoricoxib increased the risk of hypertension (RR 1.98; 95% CI 1.14, 3.46; I 2  = 34%; 13 studies, 6560 participants; moderate-certainty evidence); no difference was observed when pooling all coxibs (RR 1.26; 95% CI 0.91, 1.76; I 2  = 26%; 30 studies, 16,173 participants; moderate-certainty evidence).

Conclusions

Coxibs likely increase the renal adverse effects, including hypertension and edema. Awareness about the renal risks of coxibs should be increased, mainly in high-risk patient.

Physical functioning in the lumbar spinal surgery population: A systematic review and narrative synthesis of outcome measures and measurement properties of the physical measures

BACKGROUND

International agreement supports physical functioning as a key domain to measure interventions effectiveness for low back pain. Patient reported outcome measures (PROMs) are commonly used in the lumbar spinal surgery population but physical functioning is multidimensional and necessitates evaluation also with physical measures.

OBJECTIVE

1) To identify outcome measures (PROMs and physical) used to evaluate physical functioning in the lumbar spinal surgery population. 2) To assess measurement properties and describe the feasibility and interpretability of physical measures of physical functioning in this population.

STUDY DESIGN

Two-staged systematic review and narrative synthesis.

METHODS

This systematic review was conducted according to a registered and published protocol. Two stages of searching were conducted in MEDLINE, EMBASE, Health & Psychosocial Instruments, CINAHL, Web of Science, PEDro and ProQuest Dissertations & Theses. Stage one included studies to identify physical functioning outcome measures (PROMs and physical) in the lumbar spinal surgery population. Stage two (inception to 10 July 2023) included studies assessing measurement properties of stage one physical measures. Two independent reviewers determined study eligibility, extracted data and assessed risk of bias (RoB) according to COSMIN guidelines. Measurement properties were rated according to COSMIN criteria. Level of evidence was determined using a modified GRADE approach.

RESULTS

Stage one included 1,101 reports using PROMs (n = 70 established in literature, n = 67 developed by study authors) and physical measures (n = 134). Stage two included 43 articles assessing measurement properties of 34 physical measures. Moderate-level evidence supported sufficient responsiveness of 1-minute stair climb and 50-foot walk tests, insufficient responsiveness of 5-minute walk and sufficient reliability of distance walked during the 6-minute walk. Very low/low-level evidence limits further understanding.

CONCLUSIONS

Many physical measures of physical functioning are used in lumbar spinal surgery populations. Few have investigations of measurement properties. Strongest evidence supports responsiveness of 1-minute stair climb and 50-foot walk tests and reliability of distance walked during the 6-minute walk. Further recommendations cannot be made because of very low/low-level evidence. Results highlight promise for a range of measures, but prospective, low RoB studies are required.

Delphi studies in social and health sciences-Recommendations for an interdisciplinary standardized reporting (DELPHISTAR). Results of a Delphi study

BACKGROUND

While different proposals exist for a guideline on reporting Delphi studies, none of them has yet established itself in the health and social sciences and across the range of Delphi variants. This seems critical because empirical studies demonstrate a diversity of modifications in the conduction of Delphi studies and sometimes even errors in the reporting. The aim of the present study is to close this gap and formulate a general reporting guideline.

METHOD

In an international Delphi procedure, Delphi experts were surveyed online in three rounds to find consensus on a reporting guideline for Delphi studies in the health and social sciences. The respondents were selected via publications of Delphi studies. The preliminary reporting guideline, containing 65 items on five topics and presented for evaluation, had been developed based on a systematic review of the practice of Delphi studies and a systematic review of existing reporting guidelines for Delphi studies. Starting in the second Delphi round, the experts received feedback in the form of mean values, measures of dispersion, a summary of the open-ended responses and their own response in the previous round. The final draft of the reporting guideline contains the items on which at least 75% of the respondents agreed by assigning scale points 6 and 7 on a 7-point Likert scale.

RESULTS

1,072 experts were invited to participate. A total of 91 experts completed the first Delphi round, 69 experts the second round, and 56 experts the third round. Of the 65 items in the first draft of the reporting guideline, consensus was ultimately reached for 38 items addressing the five topics: Title and Abstract (n = 3), Context (n = 7), Method (n = 20), Results (n = 4) and Discussion (n = 4). Items focusing on theoretical research and on dissemination were either rejected or remained subjects of dissent.

DISCUSSION

We assume a high level of acceptance and interdisciplinary suitability regarding the reporting guideline presented here and referred to as the "Delphi studies in social and health sciences-recommendations for an interdisciplinary standardized reporting" (DELPHISTAR). Use of this reporting guideline can substantially improve the ability to compare and evaluate Delphi studies.

Use of the CONSIDER statement by eye health researchers when conducting and reporting research involving Indigenous peoples: an online survey

BACKGROUND

Indigenous peoples experience worse eye health compared to non-Indigenous peoples. Service providers and researchers must avoid perpetuating this inequity. To help achieve this, researchers can use the CONSolIDated critERia for strengthening the reporting of health research involving Indigenous peoples (CONSIDER) statement. This study aimed to identify the degree to which the CONSIDER statement has been used by eye health researchers when conducting and reporting research with an Indigenous component, and how they perceive its relevance in their future research.

METHODS

We used purposive sampling to recruit eye health researchers from any country who have undertaken research with an Indigenous component. The online survey collected quantitative and qualitative data and was analysed using descriptive statistics and reflexive thematic analysis. Responses were gathered on a four-point Likert scale (1 to 4), with four being the most positive statement.

RESULTS

Thirty-nine eye health researchers from nine countries completed the survey (Aotearoa New Zealand, Argentina, Australia, Brazil, Canada, Colombia, Guatemala, Panama, Peru); almost two-thirds (n = 24) undertake epidemiological research. On average, participants disclosed only 'sometimes' previously reporting CONSIDER items (2.26 ± 1.14), but they thought the items were relevant to eye health research and were motivated to use these guidelines in their future research. Some participants requested clarity about how CONSIDER aligned with existing guidelines, and when and how to apply the statement. Others shared rich experiences of the benefits to their research of Indigenous leadership and collaboration.

CONCLUSIONS

The CONSIDER statement is perceived as a valuable tool by these eye health researchers, and there are opportunities to maximise uptake and use, including increasing awareness of the statement, clarity about when it applies, and availability of institutional-level support.

Self-reported checklists and quality scoring tools in radiomics: a meta-research

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate the use of reporting checklists and quality scoring tools for self-reporting purposes in radiomics literature.

METHODS

Literature search was conducted in PubMed (date, April 23, 2023). The radiomics literature was sampled at random after a sample size calculation with a priori power analysis. A systematic assessment for self-reporting, including the use of documentation such as completed checklists or quality scoring tools, was conducted in original research papers. These eligible papers underwent independent evaluation by a panel of nine readers, with three readers assigned to each paper. Automatic annotation was used to assist in this process. Then, a detailed item-by-item confirmation analysis was carried out on papers with checklist documentation, with independent evaluation of two readers.

RESULTS

The sample size calculation yielded 117 papers. Most of the included papers were retrospective (94%; 110/117), single-center (68%; 80/117), based on their private data (89%; 104/117), and lacked external validation (79%; 93/117). Only seven papers (6%) had at least one self-reported document (Radiomics Quality Score (RQS), Transparent Reporting of a multivariable prediction model for Individual Prognosis Or Diagnosis (TRIPOD), or Checklist for Artificial Intelligence in Medical Imaging (CLAIM)), with a statistically significant binomial test (p < 0.001). Median rate of confirmed items for all three documents was 81% (interquartile range, 6). For quality scoring tools, documented scores were higher than suggested scores, with a mean difference of - 7.2 (standard deviation, 6.8).

CONCLUSION

Radiomic publications often lack self-reported checklists or quality scoring tools. Even when such documents are provided, it is essential to be cautious, as the accuracy of the reported items or scores may be questionable.

CLINICAL RELEVANCE STATEMENT

Current state of radiomic literature reveals a notable absence of self-reporting with documentation and inaccurate reporting practices. This critical observation may serve as a catalyst for motivating the radiomics community to adopt and utilize such tools appropriately, thereby fostering rigor, transparency, and reproducibility of their research, moving the field forward.

KEY POINTS

• In radiomics literature, there has been a notable absence of self-reporting with documentation. • Even if such documents are provided, it is critical to exercise caution because the accuracy of the reported items or scores may be questionable. • Radiomics community needs to be motivated to adopt and appropriately utilize the reporting checklists and quality scoring tools.

Evaluation of quality and quantity of randomized controlled trials in hepatobiliary surgery: A scoping/mapping review

AIM

To evaluate the quantity and quality of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) in hepatobiliary surgery and for identifying gaps in current evidences.

METHODS

A systematic search was conducted in MEDLINE (via PubMed), Web of Science, and Cochrane Controlled Register of Trials (CENTRAL) for RCTs of hepatobiliary surgery published from inception until the end of 2023. The quality of each study was assessed using the Cochrane risk-of-bias (RoB) tool. The associations between risk of bias and the region and publication date were also assessed. Evidence mapping was performed to identify research gaps in the field.

RESULTS

The study included 1187 records. The number and proportion of published randomized controlled trials (RCTs) in hepatobiliary surgery increased over time, from 13 RCTs (.0005% of publications) in 1970-1979 to 201 RCTs (.003% of publications) in 2020-2023. There was a significant increase in the number of studies with a low risk of bias in RoB domains (p < .01). The proportion of RCTs with low risk of bias improved significantly after the introduction of CONSORT guidelines (p < .001). The evidence mapping revealed a significant research focus on major and minor hepatectomy and cholecystectomy. However, gaps were identified in liver cyst surgery and hepatobiliary vascular surgery. Additionally, there are gaps in the field of perioperative management and nutrition intervention.

CONCLUSION

The quantity and quality of RCTs in hepatobiliary surgery have increased over time, but there is still room for improvement. We have identified gaps in current research that can be addressed in future studies.

A Bibliometric Analysis on Adherence to Reporting Standards for Endovascular Treatment of Chronic Lower Extremity Peripheral Artery Disease

BACKGROUND

The treatment of chronic limb-threatening ischemia (CLTI) involves a broad spectrum of therapies including many new and emerging techniques. To standardize the results of studies examining this pathology and to allow critical analysis and comparison between studies, the Society for Vascular Surgery (SVS) recommended reporting standard guidelines for the endovascular management of CLTI in 2016. Research studies that do not adhere to complete reporting standards are often more ambiguous in impact and external validity, leading to bias and misinformation that has potentially damaging effects on clinical decision-making. We thus sought to examine adherence to and factors associated with noncompliance with these recommended guidelines.

METHODS

A literature database search was conducted to include all clinical trials, randomized controlled trials, and retrospective comparative studies written in English examining the endovascular treatment of peripheral artery disease (PAD)/CLTI from January 2020 to August 2022. Systematic reviews, case reports, and meta-analysis were excluded. The manuscripts were reviewed for adherence with the SVS guidelines (overall and by guideline subcategories based on demographics, treatment methods, and outcomes), and factors associated with this adherence were determined. These data were used to calculate descriptive and comparative statistics.

RESULTS

Fifty-four manuscripts were identified from this time frame. On average, articles reviewed reported on 42.0% of the SVS reporting standards (range, 25.0-65.2%, Fig 1) with 74.1% of articles (n = 40) not adhering to at least 50.0% of the standards. Manuscripts most completely followed guidelines regarding "patient factors" and were least likely to demonstrate adherence to the description of CLTI and study complications. Within the guideline subcategories, complete adherence to guidelines was not demonstrated in any manuscript in stent trials, disease outcome measures, technical outcome measures, patient factors and critical limb ischemia description, and complete adherence rates within the other subcategories was low (range, 5.6-18.6%). Studies conducted within the United States and those with industry sponsorship were more likely to adhere to >50% of the reporting standards (P < 0.05). Journal impact factor, year of publication, and number of authors had no correlation to the percent adherence to guidelines in specific categories or adherence overall.

CONCLUSIONS

Adherence to reporting standard guidelines for endovascular treatment of lower extremity PAD specifically outlined by the SVS is suboptimal regardless of the quality of the journal the research is published in. Increasing adherence to reporting standards to provide a framework for comparison of studies across techniques used should be prioritized by authors, journal editors, and vascular societies.

Azzam, Francisco García-Muro-San José, Mahnaz Jamee, Rim Kasem Ali Sliman, Giuseppe Evola, Ayman M. Mustafa, Hiwa O. Abdullah, Berun A. Abdalla, Shvan H. Mohammed, Fahmi H. Kakamad, Abdulwahid M. Salih, Nicola Tartaglia, Giovanna Pavone, Giuliano D’Onghia, Silviu Daniel Preda, Sofia Maraki, Ivona Butorac Ahel, Carlo Pietro Campobasso, Jacek K. Szymański, Andrea Bottari, Laura Fortuna, Stefano Giuseppe Caraffi, Ilaria Mormile, Gaetano Riemma, Emmanuel Roilides, Serena Xodo, Nives Pecina-Slaus, Matteo Paganini, Giacomo Brisca, Giorgia Perniola, Matteo Frigerio, Rok Civljak, Salvatore Sardo, Marco Colizzi, Luminita Iliuta, Eric Chun-Pu Chu, Tummidi Santosh, Ahmed El Shamarka, Hossam Tharwat Ali, Reşat Özaras, Alparslan Dilsiz, Baha’eddin A. Muhsen, Maysa Al-Hussaini, Ricardo Grillo, G.V. Oliveira, Neil H. Riordan, Ishag Adam, Abdulqadir J. Nashwan, Nima Rezaei, Rasoul Goli, Abhigan Babu Shrestha, Sajina Shrestha, Jairo Corchuelo-Ojeda, Imen Ben Ismail, Umaharan Thamotharampillai. CaReL Guideline: A Consensus-Based Guideline on Case Reports and Literature Review (CaReL)

Introduction Clinical case reports enrich medical literature by presenting rare medical issues. However, case reports that do not adhere to a standard template often lack rigor and limit their usefulness in clinical guidance. Several guidelines for reporting case reports have been structured, while further improvements are still required. The current guideline (CaReL) aims to enhance the comprehensiveness of case reports by integrating a detailed literature review. Methods In total, 56 researchers were selected based on specific publication criteria for structuring the guidelines. The guideline development was based on a two-step consensus process, including a literature review and survey distribution. Responses underwent scrutiny to ensure reliability and validity. Content validity was assessed, with revisions made to achieve a content validity index exceeding 0.78.  The guideline's feasibility and effectiveness were evaluated by pilot testing, with feedback incorporated for finalization, ensuring the robustness and practicality of the guideline. Results The CaReL guidelines can improve the quality of case reports through a comprehensive checklist with an increased emphasis on literature review. In addition to traditional sections with their subsections discussed in previous guidelines, the checklist also focuses on literature review in the abstract and discussion. Conclusion The CaReL guidelines offer a comprehensive structure for documenting case reports. They highlight the importance of incorporating a literature review to better introduce medical issues to readers and scholars and embedding reported cases into the current scientific state of the art. Implementing these guidelines can promote knowledge sharing and improve patient care

A cross-sectional analysis of reporting guideline and clinical trial registration policies in nephrology journals

OBJECTIVE

To determine the extent to which nephrology journals recommend and require reporting guideline adherence and clinical trial registration.

BACKGROUND

Despite a rising disease burden, research published on chronic kidney disease (CKD) and the field of nephrology has failed to keep pace and is limited. To improve the quality of research in the field of nephrology, reporting guidelines have been developed to minimize such deficits in research quality. However, the extent to which nephrology journals require and use reporting guidelines in addition to clinical trial registration is unknown.

METHODS

Sixty-two Nephrology journals were selected through the 2021 Scopus CiteScore tool. Each journal's Instructions for Authors was assessed to determine endorsement of study design-specific reporting guidelines or clinical trial registration. Researchers used R (version 4.2.1) and RStudio to create data summaries of descriptive statistics for nephrology journal reporting guidelines.

RESULTS

Clinical trial registration was required by 52% (32/62) of nephrology journals within our sample. The reporting guideline for clinical trials, CONSORT, was required by 17.74% (11/62) of journals. The EQUATOR Network was mentioned by 46.77% (29/62) of journals, while 9.67% (6/62) failed to mention the ICMJE. The reporting guideline for systematic review, PRISMA, was only required by 12.90% (8/62) of journals. When contacting journal editors, 9.67% (6/62) responded and 4.83% (3/62) provided clarifying information.

CONCLUSIONS

Reporting guidelines and clinical trial registration are suboptimally required and recommended by nephrology journals. Their adoption may decrease bias and increase research quality. Thus, nephrology journals should consider a more complete endorsement of these safeguards.

A methodological quality review of citations of randomized controlled trials of diabetes type2 in leading clinical practice guidelines and systematic reviews

Objective

Evaluate methodological quality of type 2 diabetes RCTs conducted in Iran and cited in clinical practice guidelines and systematic reviews and meta-analyses.

Methods

We conducted a descriptive methodological quality review, analyzing 286 Randomized Controlled Trials (RCTs) on diabetes mellitus published in Iran from July 2004 to 2021. We searched six databases systematically and evaluated eligible articles using the CONSORT 2010 checklist for abstracts. Two investigators assessed the data using a 17-item checklist derived from CONSORT. Additionally, we examined the citations of each RCT in 260 clinical practice guidelines, with a specific focus on the adequate reporting of outcomes.

Results

Out of 6667 articles, 286 analyzed. Poor reporting and failure to meet criteria observed. Only 3.8% cited in guidelines. Reporting rates: primary outcomes (41.9%), randomization (61.8%), trial recruitment (12.6%), blinding (50.8%). 27.9% cited in systematic reviews, 50.34% in systematic reviews and meta-analyses, 26.57% in meta-analyses. 67.8% of papers cited in systematic reviews. Adherence highest for participants, objective, randomization, intervention, outcome; lowest for recruitment, trial design, funding source, harms, and reporting primary outcomes.

Conclusions

Poor methodological reporting and adherence to CONSORT checklist in evaluated RCTs, especially in methodological sections. Improvements needed for reliable and applicable results in guidelines, reviews, and meta-analyses. Inadequate outcome reporting challenges researchers, clinicians, and policymakers, impacting evidence-based decision-making. Urgent improvements in RCT registration necessary.

The Reporting of a Disproportionality Analysis for Drug Safety Signal Detection Using Individual Case Safety Reports in PharmacoVigilance (READUS-PV): Development and Statement

BACKGROUND AND AIM

Disproportionality analyses using reports of suspected adverse drug reactions are the most commonly used quantitative methods for detecting safety signals in pharmacovigilance. However, their methods and results are generally poorly reported in published articles and existing guidelines do not capture the specific features of disproportionality analyses. We here describe the development of a guideline (REporting of A Disproportionality analysis for drUg Safety signal detection using individual case safety reports in PharmacoVigilance [READUS-PV]) for reporting the results of disproportionality analyses in articles and abstracts.

METHODS

We established a group of 34 international experts from universities, the pharmaceutical industry, and regulatory agencies, with expertise in pharmacovigilance, disproportionality analyses, and assessment of safety signals. We followed a three-step process to develop the checklist: (1) an open-text survey to generate a first list of items; (2) an online Delphi method to select and rephrase the most important items; (3) a final online consensus meeting.

RESULTS

Among the panel members, 33 experts responded to round 1 and 30 to round 2 of the Delphi and 25 participated to the consensus meeting. Overall, 60 recommendations for the main body of the manuscript and 13 recommendations for the abstracts were retained by participants after the Delphi method. After merging of some items together and the online consensus meeting, the READUS-PV guidelines comprise a checklist of 32 recommendations, in 14 items, for the reporting of disproportionality analyses in the main body text and four items, comprising 12 recommendations, for abstracts.

CONCLUSIONS

The READUS-PV guidelines will support authors, editors, peer-reviewers, and users of disproportionality analyses using individual case safety report databases. Adopting these guidelines will lead to more transparent, comprehensive, and accurate reporting and interpretation of disproportionality analyses, facilitating the integration with other sources of evidence.

Automatic categorization of self-acknowledged limitations in randomized controlled trial publications

OBJECTIVE

Acknowledging study limitations in a scientific publication is a crucial element in scientific transparency and progress. However, limitation reporting is often inadequate. Natural language processing (NLP) methods could support automated reporting checks, improving research transparency. In this study, our objective was to develop a dataset and NLP methods to detect and categorize self-acknowledged limitations (e.g., sample size, blinding) reported in randomized controlled trial (RCT) publications.

METHODS

We created a data model of limitation types in RCT studies and annotated a corpus of 200 full-text RCT publications using this data model. We fine-tuned BERT-based sentence classification models to recognize the limitation sentences and their types. To address the small size of the annotated corpus, we experimented with data augmentation approaches, including Easy Data Augmentation (EDA) and Prompt-Based Data Augmentation (PromDA). We applied the best-performing model to a set of about 12K RCT publications to characterize self-acknowledged limitations at larger scale.

RESULTS

Our data model consists of 15 categories and 24 sub-categories (e.g., Population and its sub-category DiagnosticCriteria). We annotated 1090 instances of limitation types in 952 sentences (4.8 limitation sentences and 5.5 limitation types per article). A fine-tuned PubMedBERT model for limitation sentence classification improved upon our earlier model by about 1.5 absolute percentage points in F1 score (0.821 vs. 0.8) with statistical significance (p<.001). Our best-performing limitation type classification model, PubMedBERT fine-tuning with PromDA (Output View), achieved an F1 score of 0.7, improving upon the vanilla PubMedBERT model by 2.7 percentage points, with statistical significance (p<.001).

CONCLUSION

The model could support automated screening tools which can be used by journals to draw the authors' attention to reporting issues. Automatic extraction of limitations from RCT publications could benefit peer review and evidence synthesis, and support advanced methods to search and aggregate the evidence from the clinical trial literature.

Reporting guidelines for traditional Chinese medicine could be improved: a cross-sectional study

OBJECTIVES

The aim of this study is to identify available reporting guidelines for traditional Chinese medicine (TCM), delineate their fundamental characteristics, assess the scientific rigor of their development process, and evaluate their dissemination.

STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING

A search was conducted in Medline (via PubMed), China National Knowledge Infrastructure (CNKI), SinoMed, WANFANG DATA, and the EQUATOR Network to identify TCM reporting guidelines. A preprepared Excel database was used to extract information on the basic characteristics, development process, and dissemination information. The development process quality of TCM reporting guidelines was assessed by evaluating their compliance with the Guidance for Developers of Health Research Reporting Guidelines (GDHRRG). The extent of dissemination of these guidelines was analyzed by examining the number of citations received.

RESULTS

A total of 26 reporting guidelines for TCM were obtained from 20 academic journals, with 61.5% of them published in English journals. Among the guidelines, 14 (53.8%) were registered in the EQUATOR Network. On average, the compliance rate of GDHRRG guidelines was reported to be 63.3% ranging from 22.2% to 94.4%. Three steps showed poor compliance, namely guideline endorsement (23.1%), translated guidelines (19.2%), and developing a publication strategy (19.2%). Furthermore, the compliance rate of GDHRRG guidelines published in English journals was higher than that in Chinese journals. In terms of the dissemination, 15.4% of the guidelines had been cited over 100 times, while 73.1% had been cited less than 50 times.

CONCLUSION

The development of TCM reporting guidelines still has limitations in terms of regarding scientific rigor and follow-up dissemination. Therefore, it is important to ensure adherence to the scientific process in the development of TCM reporting guidelines and to strengthen their promotion, dissemination, and implementation.

Twelve years after the ARRIVE guidelines: Animal research has not yet arrived at high standards

The reproducibility crisis across animal studies jeopardizes the credibility of the main findings derived from animal research, even though these findings are critical for informing human studies. To clarify and improve transparency among animal studies, the ARRIVE reporting guidelines were first announced in 2010 and upgraded to version 2.0 in 2020. However, compliance with and awareness of those reporting guidelines has remained suboptimal. Journal editors should encourage the authors to adhere to those guidelines. Authors, editors, referees, and reviewers should be aware of the ARRIVE guideline 2.0 when assessing and evaluating the methodology and findings of animal studies. However, we should also question whether reporting guidelines alone can change a research culture and improve the reproducibility of animal investigations. Reported research may not reflect actual research. Large segments of animal research efforts are wasted because of poor design choices and because of non-publication rather than suboptimal reporting. Better training of the scientific workforce, interventions at improving animal research at the design stage, registration practices, and alignment of the reward system with the publication of rigorous animal research may achieve more than reporting guidelines alone.

Self-reporting with checklists in artificial intelligence research on medical imaging: a systematic review based on citations of CLAIM

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate the usage of a well-known and widely adopted checklist, Checklist for Artificial Intelligence in Medical imaging (CLAIM), for self-reporting through a systematic analysis of its citations.

METHODS

Google Scholar, Web of Science, and Scopus were used to search for citations (date, 29 April 2023). CLAIM's use for self-reporting with proof (i.e., filled-out checklist) and other potential use cases were systematically assessed in research papers. Eligible papers were evaluated independently by two readers, with the help of automatic annotation. Item-by-item confirmation analysis on papers with checklist proof was subsequently performed.

RESULTS

A total of 391 unique citations were identified from three databases. Of the 118 papers included in this study, 12 (10%) provided a proof of self-reported CLAIM checklist. More than half (70; 59%) only mentioned some sort of adherence to CLAIM without providing any proof in the form of a checklist. Approximately one-third (36; 31%) cited the CLAIM for reasons unrelated to their reporting or methodological adherence. Overall, the claims on 57 to 93% of the items per publication were confirmed in the item-by-item analysis, with a mean and standard deviation of 81% and 10%, respectively.

CONCLUSION

Only a small proportion of the publications used CLAIM as checklist and supplied filled-out documentation; however, the self-reported checklists may contain errors and should be approached cautiously. We hope that this systematic citation analysis would motivate artificial intelligence community about the importance of proper self-reporting, and encourage researchers, journals, editors, and reviewers to take action to ensure the proper usage of checklists.

CLINICAL RELEVANCE STATEMENT

Only a small percentage of the publications used CLAIM for self-reporting with proof (i.e., filled-out checklist). However, the filled-out checklist proofs may contain errors, e.g., false claims of adherence, and should be approached cautiously. These may indicate inappropriate usage of checklists and necessitate further action by authorities.

KEY POINTS

• Of 118 eligible papers, only 12 (10%) followed the CLAIM checklist for self-reporting with proof (i.e., filled-out checklist). More than half (70; 59%) only mentioned some kind of adherence without providing any proof. • Overall, claims on 57 to 93% of the items were valid in item-by-item confirmation analysis, with a mean and standard deviation of 81% and 10%, respectively. • Even with the checklist proof, the items declared may contain errors and should be approached cautiously.

Primary outcome reporting in clinical trials for older adults with depression

BACKGROUND

Findings from randomised controlled trials (RCTs) are synthesised through meta-analyses, which inform evidence-based decision-making. When key details regarding trial outcomes are not fully reported, knowledge synthesis and uptake of findings into clinical practice are impeded.

AIMS

Our study assessed reporting of primary outcomes in RCTs for older adults with major depressive disorder (MDD).

METHOD

Trials published between 2011 and 2021, which assessed any intervention for adults aged ≥65 years with a MDD diagnosis, and that specified a single primary outcome were considered for inclusion in our study. Outcome reporting assessment was conducted independently and in duplicate with a 58-item checklist, used in developing the CONSORT-Outcomes statement, and information in each RCT was scored as 'fully reported', 'partially reported' or 'not reported', as applicable.

RESULTS

Thirty-one of 49 RCTs reported one primary outcome and were included in our study. Most trials (71%) did not fully report over half of the 58 checklist items. Items pertaining to outcome analyses and interpretation were fully reported by 65% or more of trials. Items reported less frequently included: outcome measurement instrument properties (varied from 3 to 30%) and justification of the criteria used to define clinically meaningful change (23%).

CONCLUSIONS

There is variability in how geriatric depression RCTs report primary outcomes, with omission of details regarding measurement, selection, justification and definition of clinically meaningful change. Outcome reporting deficiencies may hinder replicability and synthesis efforts that inform clinical guidelines and decision-making. The CONSORT-Outcomes guideline should be used when reporting geriatric depression RCTs.

Reporting of equity in observational epidemiology: A methodological review

Background

Observational studies can inform how we understand and address persisting health inequities through the collection, reporting and analysis of health equity factors. However, the extent to which the analysis and reporting of equity-relevant aspects in observational research are generally unknown. Thus, we aimed to systematically evaluate how equity-relevant observational studies reported equity considerations in the study design and analyses.

Methods

We searched MEDLINE for health equity-relevant observational studies from January 2020 to March 2022, resulting in 16 828 articles. We randomly selected 320 studies, ensuring a balance in focus on populations experiencing inequities, country income settings, and coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) topic. We extracted information on study design and analysis methods.

Results

The bulk of the studies were conducted in North America (n = 95, 30%), followed by Europe and Central Asia (n = 55, 17%). Half of the studies (n = 171, 53%) addressed general health and well-being, while 49 (15%) focused on mental health conditions. Two-thirds of the studies (n = 220, 69%) were cross-sectional. Eight (3%) engaged with populations experiencing inequities, while 22 (29%) adapted recruitment methods to reach these populations. Further, 67 studies (21%) examined interaction effects primarily related to race or ethnicity (48%). Two-thirds of the studies (72%) adjusted for characteristics associated with inequities, and 18 studies (6%) used flow diagrams to depict how populations experiencing inequities progressed throughout the studies.

Conclusions

Despite over 80% of the equity-focused observational studies providing a rationale for a focus on health equity, reporting of study design features relevant to health equity ranged from 0-95%, with over half of the items reported by less than one-quarter of studies. This methodological study is a baseline assessment to inform the development of an equity-focussed reporting guideline for observational studies as an extension of the well-known Strengthening Reporting of Observational Studies in Epidemiology (STROBE) guideline.

Increasing use of EQUATOR guidelines in the European Annals of Otorhinolaryngology, Head and Neck Diseases between 2020 and 2022: A SWiM review

OBJECTIVES

To evaluate the use of EQUATOR guidelines in scientific articles published in the European Annals of Otorhinolaryngology, Head and Neck Diseases between 2020 and 2022. The aim was also to translate the most widely used guidelines into French, in order to promote their dissemination and use in otorhinolaryngology and head and neck surgery.

METHOD

The SWiM guidelines were used. Articles published in the European Annals of Otorhinolaryngology, Head and Neck Diseases between January 1, 2020 and December 31, 2022 were retrieved from the PubMed bibliographic database. Editorials, Letters to the Editor and "What is your diagnosis" articles that did not meet any EQUATOR guidelines were excluded from the analysis.

RESULTS

Of the 149 eligible published articles, 21.5% (n=32/149) mentioned use of such a guideline. Guideline use by the European Annals of Otorhinolaryngology, Head and Neck Diseases author community progressed from 0% in 2020 to 8% in 2021 and 63% in 2022.

CONCLUSION

The analysis carried out in this article and the availability of the French version of the seven EQUATOR guidelines most widely used in the European Annals of Otorhinolaryngology Head & Neck Diseases could stimulate application and compliance by authors who submit their work to the journal of the French and international French-speaking societies of otorhinolaryngology.

Guidelines for reporting pediatric and child health clinical trial protocols and reports: study protocol for SPIRIT-Children and CONSORT-Children

BACKGROUND

Despite the critical importance of clinical trials to provide evidence about the effects of intervention for children and youth, a paucity of published high-quality pediatric clinical trials persists. Sub-optimal reporting of key trial elements necessary to critically appraise and synthesize findings is prevalent. To harmonize and provide guidance for reporting in pediatric controlled clinical trial protocols and reports, reporting guideline extensions to the Standard Protocol Items: Recommendations for Interventional Trials (SPIRIT) and Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials (CONSORT) guidelines specific to pediatrics are being developed: SPIRIT-Children (SPIRIT-C) and CONSORT-Children (CONSORT-C).

METHODS

The development of SPIRIT-C/CONSORT-C will be informed by the Enhancing the Quality and Transparency of Health Research Quality (EQUATOR) method for reporting guideline development in the following stages: (1) generation of a preliminary list of candidate items, informed by (a) items developed during initial development efforts and child relevant items from recent published SPIRIT and CONSORT extensions; (b) two systematic reviews and environmental scan of the literature; (c) workshops with young people; (2) an international Delphi study, where a wide range of panelists will vote on the inclusion or exclusion of candidate items on a nine-point Likert scale; (3) a consensus meeting to discuss items that have not reached consensus in the Delphi study and to "lock" the checklist items; (4) pilot testing of items and definitions to ensure that they are understandable, useful, and applicable; and (5) a final project meeting to discuss each item in the context of pilot test results. Key partners, including young people (ages 12-24 years) and family caregivers (e.g., parents) with lived experiences with pediatric clinical trials, and individuals with expertise and involvement in pediatric trials will be involved throughout the project. SPIRIT-C/CONSORT-C will be disseminated through publications, academic conferences, and endorsement by pediatric journals and relevant research networks and organizations.

DISCUSSION

SPIRIT/CONSORT-C may serve as resources to facilitate comprehensive reporting needed to understand pediatric clinical trial protocols and reports, which may improve transparency within pediatric clinical trials and reduce research waste.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

The development of these reporting guidelines is registered with the EQUATOR Network: SPIRIT-Children ( https://www.equator-network.org/library/reporting-guidelines-under-development/reporting-guidelines-under-development-for-clinical-trials-protocols/#35 ) and CONSORT-Children ( https://www.equator-network.org/library/reporting-guidelines-under-development/reporting-guidelines-under-development-for-clinical-trials/#CHILD ).

Limitations in Medical Research: Recognition, Influence, and Warning

Background

As the number of limitations increases in a medical research article, their consequences multiply and the validity of findings decreases. How often do limitations occur in a medical article? What are the implications of limitation interaction? How often are the conclusions hedged in their explanation?

Objective

To identify the number, type, and frequency of limitations and words used to describe conclusion(s) in medical research articles.

Methods

Search, analysis, and evaluation of open access research articles from 2021 and 2022 from the Journal of the Society of Laparoscopic and Robotic Surgery and 2022 Surgical Endoscopy for type(s) of limitation(s) admitted to by author(s) and the number of times they occurred. Limitations not admitted to were found, obvious, and not claimed. An automated text analysis was performed for hedging words in conclusion statements. A limitation index score is proposed to gauge the validity of statements and conclusions as the number of limitations increases.

Results

A total of 298 articles were reviewed and analyzed, finding 1,764 limitations. Four articles had no limitations. The average was between 3.7% and 6.9% per article. Hedging, weasel words and words of estimative probability description was found in 95.6% of the conclusions.

Conclusions

Limitations and their number matter. The greater the number of limitations and ramifications of their effects, the more outcomes and conclusions are affected. Wording ambiguity using hedging or weasel words shows that limitations affect the uncertainty of claims. The limitation index scoring method shows the diminished validity of finding(s) and conclusion(s).

ACCORD (ACcurate COnsensus Reporting Document): A reporting guideline for consensus methods in biomedicine developed via a modified Delphi

BACKGROUND

In biomedical research, it is often desirable to seek consensus among individuals who have differing perspectives and experience. This is important when evidence is emerging, inconsistent, limited, or absent. Even when research evidence is abundant, clinical recommendations, policy decisions, and priority-setting may still require agreement from multiple, sometimes ideologically opposed parties. Despite their prominence and influence on key decisions, consensus methods are often poorly reported. Our aim was to develop the first reporting guideline dedicated to and applicable to all consensus methods used in biomedical research regardless of the objective of the consensus process, called ACCORD (ACcurate COnsensus Reporting Document).

METHODS AND FINDINGS

We followed methodology recommended by the EQUATOR Network for the development of reporting guidelines: a systematic review was followed by a Delphi process and meetings to finalize the ACCORD checklist. The preliminary checklist was drawn from the systematic review of existing literature on the quality of reporting of consensus methods and suggestions from the Steering Committee. A Delphi panel (n = 72) was recruited with representation from 6 continents and a broad range of experience, including clinical, research, policy, and patient perspectives. The 3 rounds of the Delphi process were completed by 58, 54, and 51 panelists. The preliminary checklist of 56 items was refined to a final checklist of 35 items relating to the article title (n = 1), introduction (n = 3), methods (n = 21), results (n = 5), discussion (n = 2), and other information (n = 3).

CONCLUSIONS

The ACCORD checklist is the first reporting guideline applicable to all consensus-based studies. It will support authors in writing accurate, detailed manuscripts, thereby improving the completeness and transparency of reporting and providing readers with clarity regarding the methods used to reach agreement. Furthermore, the checklist will make the rigor of the consensus methods used to guide the recommendations clear for readers. Reporting consensus studies with greater clarity and transparency may enhance trust in the recommendations made by consensus panels.

Does exercise affect quality of life and participation of adolescents and adults with cerebral palsy: a systematic review

PURPOSE

Investigate the effect of exercise for adults with cerebral palsy (CP) on quality of life, participation (attendance and involvement in life situations), functional mobility, pain, fatigue, mood, and self-efficacy.

METHODS

A systematic review was completed. Twelve databases were searched from inception to August 2022 for studies including participants (≥16 years) with cerebral palsy, and that evaluated an exercise intervention. Two reviewers independently assessed eligibility, risk of bias, and extracted data.

RESULTS

Seventeen studies (total n = 532) were included: 12 randomised control trials, four non-randomised trials, and one single case experimental design. Interventions studied were predominantly strength, aerobic or treadmill training, dance, and swimming. No study assessed participation, pain or mood. Of two studies that assessed quality of life, one reported a positive effect on an aspect of mental health immediately after the programme finished. All studies assessed functional mobility, but only one reported a positive effect. One study assessed self-efficacy and found no effect, and another assessed fatigue and reported conflicting results.

CONCLUSIONS

The effect of exercise for adults with CP, on outcomes that adults report as important to them - quality of life, participation, pain, mood, and fatigue - are unknown.IMPLICATIONS FOR REHABILITATIONTo address outcomes important to adults with cerebral palsy (CP), it is important to understand how exercise affects participation and quality of life.All modes of exercise reviewed appear safe for adults with CP and choice should be based on the client's preferences, access to services, and convenience.Addressing any needed accommodations in the environment and context is likely more important than exercise prescription parameters when tailoring exercise to meet the needs of adults with CP and sustain participation.

Adherence to Complication Reporting for Randomized Controlled Trials Contained in Clinical Practice Guidelines for the Management of Carpal Tunnel Syndrome

Purpose

Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) are frequently used in creating recommendations contained within clinical practice guidelines (CPGs). However, investigations outside of hand surgery have reported that RCTs within CPGs infrequently report complications and harms-related data. Our purpose was to assess adherence to complication reporting and harms-related outcomes contained in the Consolidated Standards for Reporting (CONSORT) Extension of Harms and Standards for Reporting of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies (STARD) reporting checklists for RCTs within the American Academy of Orthopaedic Surgery (AAOS) CPGs for carpal tunnel syndrome (CTS).

Methods

We identified all RCTs within the AAOS CTS CPGs. All therapeutic RCTs and diagnostic studies were included. We used the CONSORT Harms Checklist criteria to assess adherence to the reporting of adverse events for therapeutic RCTs and the STARD criteria to assess the diagnostic accuracy of the articles. We defined adequate compliance as adherence to ≥50% of the checklist items.

Results

We identified 82 therapeutic RCTs and 90 diagnostic accuracy articles within the AAOS CTS CPG. For therapeutic RCTs, we found that the average compliance with the published checklists was 19%. For diagnostic studies, the average compliance with checklists was found to be 55%. Eleven therapeutic RCTs (13%) and 60 diagnostic studies (67%) were determined to have adequate compliance for the CONSORT and STARD checklists, respectively.

Conclusions

Randomized controlled trials in the AAOS CPGs for CTS have low compliance with the CONSORT Extension for Harms Checklist. Although the overall adherence to the items published in the STARD statement for diagnostic accuracy evaluation remains higher, future efforts should be made to improve the adherence rates to both checklists.

Clinical relevance

Improved standardization of complication reporting may aid in comparing outcomes across multiple clinical investigations of upper-extremity procedures.

Development of the Preferred Components for Co-Design in Research Guideline and Checklist: Protocol for a Scoping Review and a Modified Delphi Process

BACKGROUND

There is increasing evidence that co-design can lead to more engaging, acceptable, relevant, feasible, and even effective interventions. However, no guidance is provided on the specific designs and associated methods or methodologies involved in the process. We propose the development of the Preferred Components for Co-design in Research (PRECISE) guideline to enhance the consistency, transparency, and quality of reporting co-design studies used to develop complex health interventions.

OBJECTIVE

The aim is to develop the first iteration of the PRECISE guideline. The purpose of the PRECISE guideline is to improve the consistency, transparency, and quality of reporting on studies that use co-design to develop complex health interventions.

METHODS

The aim will be achieved by addressing the following objectives: to review and synthesize the literature on the models, theories, and frameworks used in the co-design of complex health interventions to identify their common elements (components, values or principles, associated methods and methodologies, and outcomes); and by using the results of the scoping review, prioritize the co-design components, values or principles, associated methods and methodologies, and outcomes to be included in the PRECISE guideline.

RESULTS

The project has been funded by the Canadian Institutes of Health Research.

CONCLUSIONS

The collective results of this project will lead to a ready-to-implement PRECISE guideline that outlines a minimum set of items to include when reporting the co-design of complex health interventions. The PRECISE guideline will improve the consistency, transparency, and quality of reports of studies. Additionally, it will include guidance on how to enact or enable the values or principles of co-design for meaningful and collaborative solutions (interventions). PRECISE might also be used by peer reviewers and editors to improve the review of manuscripts involving co-design. Ultimately, the PRECISE guideline will facilitate more efficient use of new results about complex health intervention development and bring better returns on research investments.

INTERNATIONAL REGISTERED REPORT IDENTIFIER (IRRID)

PRR1-10.2196/50463.

Metaresearch study highlights the gender gap in randomized controlled trials in dentistry

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES

This study aimed to assess the gender gap in randomized controlled trials (RCTs) in dentistry in terms of authorship, collaborations, metrics, funding and reporting of good research practice and transparecy.

METHODS

The search was performed in PubMed for RCTs restricted to English texts in the dental field, indexed from 12/31/2016 to 12/31/2021. Two reviewers screened the studies in line with the eligibility criteria. A total of 844 articles were included. The name and gender of authors, citation metrics, funding, reporting of characteristics of good research practice and transparency were extracted. We considered "collaboration between authors" when the corresponding author was different from the first author.

RESULTS

The proportion of women as first authors was 46.56% and 40.12% for corresponding authors. The analysis showed that when a woman is the corresponding author, the probability of the first author also being a woman is 57% higher compared to the first author being a man. For "protocol registration" and "data sharing," the prevalence of reporting was higher when women were first authors.

CONCLUSION

A gender gap in dentistry RCTs was identified and related to the participation of women as first and corresponding authors and the collaboration between authors.

Methodology reporting improved over time in 176,469 randomized controlled trials

OBJECTIVES

To describe randomized controlled trial (RCT) methodology reporting over time.

STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING

We used a deep learning-based sentence classification model based on the Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials (CONSORT) statement, considered minimum requirements for reporting RCTs. We included 176,469 RCT reports published between 1966 and 2018. We analyzed the reporting trends over 5-year time periods, grouping trials from 1966 to 1990 in a single stratum. We also explored the effect of journal impact factor (JIF) and medical discipline.

RESULTS

Population, Intervention, Comparator, Outcome (PICO) items were commonly reported during each period, and reporting increased over time (e.g., interventions: 79.1% during 1966-1990 to 87.5% during 2010-2018). Reporting of some methods information has increased, although there is room for improvement (e.g., sequence generation: 10.8-41.8%). Some items are reported infrequently (e.g., allocation concealment: 5.1-19.3%). The number of items reported and JIF are weakly correlated (Pearson's r (162,702) = 0.16, P < 0.001). The differences in the proportion of items reported between disciplines are small (<10%).

CONCLUSION

Our analysis provides large-scale quantitative support for the hypothesis that RCT methodology reporting has improved over time. Extending these models to all CONSORT items could facilitate compliance checking during manuscript authoring and peer review, and support metaresearch.

Protocol of the CONSORT and SPIRIT Extension for multicenter clinical trials

Background

Multicenter clinical trials play an indispensable role for assessing the efficacy of a new intervention or treatment, particularly in Phase II or III studies. Previous studies have shown that these studies often suffer from inadequate reporting of key details related to their design, implementation, and analysis, both in the protocol and final reports. This limitation reduces the practical and scientific value of the findings. Furthermore, the lack of guidance on how to report multicenter features can contribute to poor reporting. Therefore, this study aims to develop guidelines to improve the reporting of multicenter trials, including two Extensions of the CONSORT 2010 and the SPIRIT 2013.

Methods/design

The standard methodology for developing health research reporting guidelines involves the following steps: (i) Identifying the need for development and launching the research project; (ii) Preparing the registration and reviewing the literatures; (iii) Proposing the initial Checklists and conducting the Delphi exercise; (iv) Arranging the consensus meeting and formulating the Checklists; (v) Conducting the pilot test and drafting explanatory documents (E&E); (vi) Seeking comments from advisory group and finalizing the guidelines; and (vii) Developing the publication and dissemination strategies.

Conclusion

By using the CONSORT and SPIRIT checklists as starting points, the development of extensions specific to multicenter trials can help researchers design and report high-quality clinical research. This, in turn, can facilitate the application of study findings in the current evidence-based healthcare system.

Prospective registration of randomized clinical trials for total shoulder arthroplasty is low: a systematic review

BACKGROUND

Prospective trial registration has become an important means of improving the transparency and reproducibility of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and is recommended by the Journal of Shoulder and Elbow Surgery (JSES) per the Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials (CONSORT) guidelines. Herein, we performed a cross-sectional evaluation of RCTs published in JSES from 2010 to present to determine the prevalence of trial registration and consistency of outcome reporting.

METHODS

The electronic database PubMed was searched to identify all RCTs on total shoulder arthroplasty (TSA) published in JSES from 2010 to 2022 using the search terms "randomized controlled trial" AND "shoulder" AND "arthroplasty OR replacement." RCTs were considered to be registered if they provided a registration number. For articles that were registered, authors also extracted the registry name, registration date, date of first enrollment, date of last enrollment, and if the primary outcomes reported in the registry were either (1) omitted, (2) newly introduced in the publication, (3) reported as a secondary outcome or vice versa, or (4) varied in timing of assessment compared to the publication. "Early" RCTs were considered those published from 2010 to 2016, whereas "later" RCTs were from 2017 to 2022.

RESULTS

Fifty-eight RCTs met inclusion criteria. There were 16 early RCTs and 42 later RCTs. Twenty-three of the 58 (39.7%) studies were registered, with 9 of 22 with an available registry (40.9%) of those being enrolled prior to patient enrollment. Nineteen of the registered studies (82.6%) provided the name of the registry and a registration number. The proportion of later RCTs that were registered was not significantly different from the early RCTs (45.2% vs. 25.0%, P = .232). Seven RCTs (31.8%) had at least 1 inconsistency compared with the registry. The most common discrepancy was the timing of the assessment (ie, follow-up period) reported in the publication vs. the registry.

DISCUSSION

Although JSES recommends prospective trial registration, less than half of shoulder arthroplasty RCTs are registered and more than 30% registered trials have at least 1 inconsistency with their registry record. More rigorous review of trial registration and accuracy is necessary to limit bias in published shoulder arthroplasty RCTs.

Heterogeneity and Gaps in Reporting Primary Outcomes From Neonatal Trials

OBJECTIVES

Clear outcome reporting in clinical trials facilitates accurate interpretation and application of findings and improves evidence-informed decision-making. Standardized core outcomes for reporting neonatal trials have been developed, but little is known about how primary outcomes are reported in neonatal trials. Our aim was to identify strengths and weaknesses of primary outcome reporting in recent neonatal trials.

METHODS

Neonatal trials including ≥100 participants/arm published between 2015 and 2020 with at least 1 primary outcome from a neonatal core outcome set were eligible. Raters recruited from Cochrane Neonatal were trained to evaluate the trials' primary outcome reporting completeness using relevant items from Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials 2010 and Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials-Outcomes 2022 pertaining to the reporting of the definition, selection, measurement, analysis, and interpretation of primary trial outcomes. All trial reports were assessed by 3 raters. Assessments and discrepancies between raters were analyzed.

RESULTS

Outcome-reporting evaluations were completed for 36 included neonatal trials by 39 raters. Levels of outcome reporting completeness were highly variable. All trials fully reported the primary outcome measurement domain, statistical methods used to compare treatment groups, and participant flow. Yet, only 28% of trials fully reported on minimal important difference, 24% on outcome data missingness, 66% on blinding of the outcome assessor, and 42% on handling of outcome multiplicity.

CONCLUSIONS

Primary outcome reporting in neonatal trials often lacks key information needed for interpretability of results, knowledge synthesis, and evidence-informed decision-making in neonatology. Use of existing outcome-reporting guidelines by trialists, journals, and peer reviewers will enhance transparent reporting of neonatal trials.

A structured approach to information retrieval improved identification of funding and researchers' conflicts of interest in trials included in Cochrane reviews

OBJECTIVES

To compare the contemporary Cochrane review approach for retrieving information on trial funding and researchers' conflicts of interest with a structured approach for information retrieval.

STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING

Methodological study of 100 Cochrane reviews from August to December 2020 and one randomly selected trial from each review. Reporting of trial funding and researchers' conflicts of interest in reviews was compared with information identified using a structured retrieval process, and time to retrieve information was noted. We also formulated a guide to systematic reviewers for efficient information retrieval.

RESULTS

Sixty-eight of 100 Cochrane reviews reported trial funding and 24 reported trial researchers' conflicts of interest. A simple structured approach, searching only trial publications (including conflicts of interest disclosure forms), identified funding for 16 additional trials and conflicts of interest information for 39 additional trials. A comprehensive structured approach, searching multiple information sources, identified funding for two additional trials and conflicts of interest for 14 additional trials. The median time to retrieve information was 10 minutes per trial (interquartile range: 7-15) for the simple approach and 20 minutes (11-43) for the comprehensive approach.

CONCLUSION

A structured information retrieval approach improves identification of funding and researchers' conflicts of interest in trials included in Cochrane reviews.

Systematic review of adherence to the standards for reporting of diagnostic accuracy studies (STARD) 2015 reporting guideline in cerebral aneurysm imaging diagnostic accuracy studies

BACKGROUND

Diagnostic neuroimaging plays an essential role in guiding clinical decision-making in the management of patients with cerebral aneurysms. Imaging technologies for investigating cerebral aneurysms constantly evolve, and clinicians rely on the published literature to remain up to date. Reporting guidelines have been developed to standardise and strengthen the reporting of clinical evidence. Therefore, it is essential that radiological diagnostic accuracy studies adhere to such guidelines to ensure completeness of reporting. Incomplete reporting hampers the reader's ability to detect bias, determine generalisability of study results or replicate investigation parameters, detracting from the credibility and reliability of studies.

OBJECTIVE

The purpose of this systematic review was to evaluate adherence to the Standards for Reporting of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies (STARD) 2015 reporting guideline amongst imaging diagnostic accuracy studies for cerebral aneurysms.

METHODS

A systematic search for cerebral aneurysm imaging diagnostic accuracy studies was conducted. Journals were cross examined against the STARD 2015 checklist and their compliance with item numbers was recorded.

RESULTS

The search yielded 66 articles. The mean number of STARD items reported was 24.2 ± 2.7 (71.2% ± 7.9%), with a range of 19 to 30 out of a maximum number of 34 items.

CONCLUSION

Taken together, these results indicate that adherence to the STARD 2015 guideline in cerebral aneurysm imaging diagnostic accuracy studies was moderate. Measures to improve compliance include mandating STARD 2015 adherence in instructions to authors issued by journals.

Strengthening Reporting of Neonatal Trials

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES

There is variability in the selection and reporting of outcomes in neonatal trials with key information frequently omitted. This can impact applicability of trial findings to clinicians, families, and caregivers, and impair evidence synthesis. The Neonatal Core Outcomes Set describes outcomes agreed as clinically important that should be assessed in all neonatal trials, and Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials (CONSORT)-Outcomes 2022 is a new, harmonized, evidence-based reporting guideline for trial outcomes. We reviewed published trials using CONSORT-Outcomes 2022 guidance to identify exemplars of neonatal core outcome reporting to strengthen description of outcomes in future trial publications.

METHODS

Neonatal trials including >100 participants per arm published between 2015 to 2020 with a primary outcome included in the Neonatal Core Outcome Set were identified. Primary outcome reporting was reviewed using CONSORT 2010 and CONSORT-Outcomes 2022 guidelines by assessors recruited from Cochrane Neonatal. Examples of clear and complete outcome reporting were identified with verbatim text extracted from trial reports.

RESULTS

Thirty-six trials were reviewed by 39 assessors. Examples of good reporting for CONSORT 2010 and CONSORT-Outcomes 2022 criteria were identified and subdivided into 3 outcome categories: "survival," "short-term neonatal complications," and "long-term developmental outcomes" depending on the core outcomes to which they relate. These examples are presented to strengthen future research reporting.

CONCLUSIONS

We have identified examples of good trial outcome reporting. These illustrate how important neonatal outcomes should be reported to meet the CONSORT 2010 and CONSORT-Outcomes 2022 guidelines. Emulating these examples will improve the transmission of information relating to outcomes and reduce associated research waste.

Consolidated Reporting Guidelines for Prognostic and Diagnostic Machine Learning Modeling Studies: Development and Validation

BACKGROUND

The reporting of machine learning (ML) prognostic and diagnostic modeling studies is often inadequate, making it difficult to understand and replicate such studies. To address this issue, multiple consensus and expert reporting guidelines for ML studies have been published. However, these guidelines cover different parts of the analytics lifecycle, and individually, none of them provide a complete set of reporting requirements.

OBJECTIVE

We aimed to consolidate the ML reporting guidelines and checklists in the literature to provide reporting items for prognostic and diagnostic ML in in-silico and shadow mode studies.

METHODS

We conducted a literature search that identified 192 unique peer-reviewed English articles that provide guidance and checklists for reporting ML studies. The articles were screened by their title and abstract against a set of 9 inclusion and exclusion criteria. Articles that were filtered through had their quality evaluated by 2 raters using a 9-point checklist constructed from guideline development good practices. The average κ was 0.71 across all quality criteria. The resulting 17 high-quality source papers were defined as having a quality score equal to or higher than the median. The reporting items in these 17 articles were consolidated and screened against a set of 6 inclusion and exclusion criteria. The resulting reporting items were sent to an external group of 11 ML experts for review and updated accordingly. The updated checklist was used to assess the reporting in 6 recent modeling papers in JMIR AI. Feedback from the external review and initial validation efforts was used to improve the reporting items.

RESULTS

In total, 37 reporting items were identified and grouped into 5 categories based on the stage of the ML project: defining the study details, defining and collecting the data, modeling methodology, model evaluation, and explainability. None of the 17 source articles covered all the reporting items. The study details and data description reporting items were the most common in the source literature, with explainability and methodology guidance (ie, data preparation and model training) having the least coverage. For instance, a median of 75% of the data description reporting items appeared in each of the 17 high-quality source guidelines, but only a median of 33% of the data explainability reporting items appeared. The highest-quality source articles tended to have more items on reporting study details. Other categories of reporting items were not related to the source article quality. We converted the reporting items into a checklist to support more complete reporting.

CONCLUSIONS

Our findings supported the need for a set of consolidated reporting items, given that existing high-quality guidelines and checklists do not individually provide complete coverage. The consolidated set of reporting items is expected to improve the quality and reproducibility of ML modeling studies.

Occupational Health Applied Infodemiological Studies of Nutritional Diseases and Disorders: Scoping Review with Meta-Analysis

(1) Objective: to identify and review existing infodemiological studies on nutritional disorders applied to occupational health and to analyse the effect of the intervention on body mass index (BMI) or alternatively body weight (BW); (2) Methods: This study involved a critical analysis of articles retrieved from MEDLINE (via PubMed), Embase, Cochrane Library, PsycINFO, Scopus, Web of Science, Latin American, and Caribbean Health Sciences Literature (LILACS) and Medicina en Español (MEDES) using the descriptors "Nutrition Disorders, "Occupational Health" and "Infodemiology", applying the filters "Humans" and "Adult: 19+ years". The search was conducted on 29 May 2021; (3) Results: a total of 357 references were identified from the bibliographic database searches; after applying the inclusion and exclusion criteria, a total of 11 valid studies were obtained for the review. Interventions could be categorised into (1) interventions related to lifestyle, physical activity, and dietary changes through education programmes, (2) interventions associated with lifestyle, physical activity, and dietary changes through the use of telemonitoring systems or self-help applications, (3) interventions tied to lifestyle, physical activity, and dietary changes through control and/or social network support groups, and (4) interventions linked to changes in the work environment, including behavioural change training and work environment training tasks. The meta-analysis demonstrated that the heterogeneity present when analysing the results for BMI was 72% (p < 0.01), which decreased to 0% (p = 0.57) when analysing the outcomes for weight, in which case the null hypothesis of homogeneity could be accepted. In all instances, the final summary of the effect was on the decreasing side for both BMI and BW; (4) Conclusions: Despite the high heterogeneity of the results reported, the trend shown in all cases indicates that the intervention methodologies implemented by empowering individuals through Web 2.0 technologies are positive in terms of the problem of overweight. Further implementation of novel strategies to support individuals is needed to overcome obesity, and, at least in the early studies, these strategies seem to be making the necessary change.

The SUPER reporting guideline suggested for reporting of surgical technique

Background

Existing reporting guidelines pay insufficient attention to the detail and comprehensiveness reporting of surgical technique. The Surgical techniqUe rePorting chEcklist and standaRds (SUPER) aims to address this gap by defining reporting standards for surgical technique. The SUPER guideline intends to apply to articles that encompass surgical technique in any study design, surgical discipline, and stage of surgical innovation.

Methods

Following the EQUATOR (Enhancing the QUAlity and Transparency Of health Research) Network approach, 16 surgeons, journal editors, and methodologists reviewed existing reporting guidelines relating to surgical technique, reviewed papers from 15 top journals, and brainstormed to draft initial items for the SUPER. The initial items were revised through a three-round Delphi survey from 21 multidisciplinary Delphi panel experts from 13 countries and regions. The final SUPER items were formed after an online consensus meeting to resolve disagreements and a three-round wording refinement by all 16 SUPER working group members and five SUPER consultants.

Results

The SUPER reporting guideline includes 22 items that are considered essential for good and informative surgical technique reporting. The items are divided into six sections: background, rationale, and objectives (items 1 to 5); preoperative preparations and requirements (items 6 to 9); surgical technique details (items 10 to 15); postoperative considerations and tasks (items 16 to 19); summary and prospect (items 20 and 21); and other information (item 22).

Conclusions

The SUPER reporting guideline has the potential to guide detailed, comprehensive, and transparent surgical technique reporting for surgeons. It may also assist journal editors, peer reviewers, systematic reviewers, and guideline developers in the evaluation of surgical technique papers and help practitioners to better understand and reproduce surgical technique.

Trial Registration

https://www.equator-network.org/library/reporting-guidelines-under-development/reporting-guidelines-under-development-for-other-study-designs/#SUPER.

Standing on the shoulders of bias: lack of transparency and reporting of critical rigor characteristics in pain research

ABSTRACT

Rigorous experimental design with transparent reporting in biomedical science reduces risk of bias and allows for scientists to judge the quality of the research. Basic factors of rigor such as blinding, randomization, power analysis, and inclusion of both sexes impact the reproducibility by reducing experimental bias. We designed a systematic study to analyze basic factors of rigor, inclusion of sex, and whether data were analyzed or disaggregated by sex over the past 10 years in the journal PAIN . Studies that included humans reported randomization in 81%, blinding in 48%, and the use of a power analysis calculation in 27% over the past 10 years. Studies that included mice reported randomization in 35%, blinding in 70%, and the use of a power analysis in 9%. Studies that included rats reported randomization in 38%, blinding in 63%, and the use of power analysis in 12%. This study also found that human studies consistently included both sexes over the past decade, but less than 20% of data were disaggregated or analyzed for sex differences. Although mouse and rat studies predominately used males only, there has been a slight increase in inclusion of both sexes over the past few years. Justification for single-sex studies was below 50% in both human and rodent data. In both human and animal studies, transparency in reporting of experimental design and inclusion of both sexes should be considered standard practice and will result in improved quality and reproducibility of published research.

Occupational Health of Health-Care Workers with Overnutrition: Scoping Review with Meta-Analysis

(1) Objective: To review the scientific literature on the impact of interventions to enhance the occupational health of health-care workers with overnutrition. (2) Methods: Scoping review with meta-analysis. Data were obtained by consulting the following bibliographic databases: MEDLINE (via PubMed), Embase, Cochrane Library, Scopus, Web of Science, Latin American and Caribbean Literature on Health Sciences (LILACS), and Medicina en Español (MEDES). The terms used as descriptors and as text in the title and abstract fields of the records were "health workers", "overnutrition", and "occupational health", using the filters "human", "adult": 19+ years", and "clinical trial". The search update date was January 2023. The documentary quality of the articles was evaluated using the CONSORT questionnaire and the presence of bias was assessed using the Rob 2.0 tool. (3) Results: From the 611 digitally retrieved references, 17 clinical trials were selected after applying the inclusion and exclusion criteria. CONSORT scores ranged from a minimum of 14.6% to a maximum of 91.7%, with a median of 68.8%. According to the SIGN criteria, this review provided "1" evidence with a grade B recommendation. Six different types of intervention were tested, grouped into strategies ranging from a single intervention to a combination of four interventions. The summary effect of the meta-analysis showed significant weight loss, but no association with reduced body mass index. (4) Conclusions: While workplace interventions have been shown to be potentially effective, and strategies using different types of interventions have been proven to be useful in tackling overnutrition, an effective and sustainable solution for changing the behavior of health professionals to tackle overweight and obesity has yet to be identified.

Improving the Rigor of Mechanistic Behavioral Science: The Introduction of the Checklist for Investigating Mechanisms in Behavior-Change Research (CLIMBR)

Diverse fields rely on the development of effective interventions to change human behaviors, such as following prescribed medical regimens, engaging in recommended levels of physical activity, getting vaccinations that promote individual and public health, and getting a healthy amount of sleep. Despite recent advancements in behavioral intervention development and behavior-change science, systematic progress is stalled by the lack of a systematic approach to identifying and targeting mechanisms of action that underlie successful behavior change. Further progress in behavioral intervention science requires that mechanisms be universally prespecified, measurable, and malleable. We developed the CheckList for Investigating Mechanisms in Behavior-change Research (CLIMBR) to guide basic and applied researchers in the planning and reporting of manipulations and interventions relevant to understanding the underlying active ingredients that do-or do not-drive successful change in behavioral outcomes. We report the rationale for creating CLIMBR and detail the processes of its development and refinement based on feedback from behavior-change experts and NIH officials. The final version of CLIMBR is included in full.

The SUPER reporting guideline suggested for reporting of surgical technique: explanation and elaboration

Background

Surgical technique plays an essential role in achieving good health outcomes. However, the quality of surgical technique reporting remains heterogeneous. Reporting checklists could help authors to describe the surgical technique more transparently and effectively, as well as to assist reviewers and editors evaluate it more informatively, and promote readers to better understand the technique. We previously developed SUPER (surgical technique reporting checklist and standards) to assist authors in reporting their research that contains surgical technique more transparently. However, further explanation and elaboration of each item are needed for better understanding and reporting practice.

Methods

We searched surgical literature in PubMed, Google Scholar and journal websites published up to January 2023 to find multidiscipline examples in various article types for each SUPER item.

Results

We explain the 22 items of the SUPER and provide rationales item by item alongside. We provide 69 examples from 53 literature that present optimal reporting of the 22 items. Article types of examples include pure surgical technique, and case reports, observational studies and clinical trials that contain surgical technique. Examples are multidisciplinary, including general surgery, orthopaedical surgery, cardiac surgery, thoracic surgery, gastrointestinal surgery, neurological surgery, oncogenic surgery, and emergency surgery etc.

Conclusions

Along with SUPER article, this explanation and elaboration file can promote deeper understanding on the SUPER items. We hope that the article could further guide surgeons and researchers in reporting, and assist editors and peer reviewers in reviewing manuscripts related to surgical technique.

AgroEcoList 1.0: A checklist to improve reporting standards in ecological research in agriculture

Many publications lack sufficient background information (e.g. location) to be interpreted, replicated, or reused for synthesis. This impedes scientific progress and the application of science to practice. Reporting guidelines (e.g. checklists) improve reporting standards. They have been widely taken up in the medical sciences, but not in ecological and agricultural research. Here, we use a community-centred approach to develop a reporting checklist (AgroEcoList 1.0) through surveys and workshops with 23 experts and the wider agroecological community. To put AgroEcoList in context, we also assessed the agroecological community's perception of reporting standards in agroecology. A total of 345 researchers, reviewers, and editors, responded to our survey. Although only 32% of respondents had prior knowledge of reporting guidelines, 76% of those that had said guidelines improved reporting standards. Overall, respondents agreed on the need of AgroEcolist 1.0; only 24% of respondents had used reporting guidelines before, but 78% indicated they would use AgroEcoList 1.0. We updated AgroecoList 1.0 based on respondents' feedback and user-testing. AgroecoList 1.0 consists of 42 variables in seven groups: experimental/sampling set-up, study site, soil, livestock management, crop and grassland management, outputs, and finances. It is presented here, and is also available on github (https://github.com/AgroecoList/Agroecolist). AgroEcoList 1.0 can serve as a guide for authors, reviewers, and editors to improve reporting standards in agricultural ecology. Our community-centred approach is a replicable method that could be adapted to develop reporting checklists in other fields. Reporting guidelines such as AgroEcoList can improve reporting standards and therefore the application of research to practice, and we recommend that they are adopted more widely in agriculture and ecology.

Reporting quality of randomized controlled trials of angina pectoris with integrated traditional Chinese and western medicine interventions: a cross-sectional study

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE

Integrated traditional Chinese and western medicine (ITCWM), as a representative type of complex intervention, is commonly used for the treatment of angina pectoris (AP) in clinical practice. However, it is unclear whether the details of ITCWM interventions, such as rationale for selection and design, implementation and potential interactions for different therapies, were adequately reported. Therefore, this study aimed to describe the reporting characteristics and quality in randomized controlled trials (RCTs) of AP with ITCWM interventions.

METHODS

Through a search of 7 electronic databases, we identified RCTs of AP with ITCWM interventions published in both English and Chinese from 1^st Jan 2017 to 6^th Aug 2022. The general characteristics of included studies were summarized, further, the quality of reporting was assessed based on three Checklists, including the CONSORT with 36 items (except for one item 1b about abstract), the CONSORT for abstracts (17 items), and a self-designed ITCWM-related checklist (21 items covering rationale and details of interventions, outcome assessment and analysis). The quality of RCTs published in English and Chinese, as well as journals and dissertations were also compared.

RESULTS

A total of 451 eligible RCTs were included. For the reporting compliance, the mean score (95% Confidence Interval) of the CONSORT (72 scores in total), CONSORT for abstract (34 scores in total), and ITCWM-related (42 scores in total) checklists was 27.82 (27.44-28.19), 14.17 (13.98-14.37) and 21.06 (20.69-21.43), respectively. More than half items were evaluated as poor quality (reporting rate < 50%) among each Checklist. Moreover, the reporting quality of publications in English journals was higher than that in Chinese journals in terms of the CONSORT items. The reporting of published dissertations was better than that in journal publications regarding both the CONSORT and ITCWM-specific items.

CONCLUSION

Although the CONSORT appears to have enhanced the reporting of RCTs in AP, the quality of ITCWM specifics is variable and in need of improvement. Reporting guideline of the ITCWM recommendations should be developed thus to improve their quality.

TRIPLE C reporting principles for case study evaluations of the role of context in complex interventions

BACKGROUND

Guidance and reporting principles such as CONSORT (for randomised trials) and PRISMA (for systematic reviews) have greatly improved the reporting, discoverability, transparency and consistency of published research. We sought to develop similar guidance for case study evaluations undertaken to explore the influence of context on the processes and outcomes of complex interventions.

METHODS

A range of experts were recruited to an online Delphi panel, sampling for maximum diversity in disciplines (e.g. public health, health services research, organisational studies), settings (e.g. country), and sectors (e.g. academic, policy, third sector). To inform panel deliberations, we prepared background materials based on: [a] a systematic meta-narrative review of empirical and methodological literatures on case study, context and complex interventions; [b] the collective experience of a network of health systems and public health researchers; and [c] the established RAMESES II standards (which cover one kind of case study). We developed a list of topics and issues based on these sources and encouraged panel members to provide free text comments. Their feedback informed development of a set of items in the form of questions for potential inclusion in the reporting principles. We circulated these by email, asking panel members to rank each potential item twice (for relevance and validity) on a 7-point Likert scale. This sequence was repeated twice.

RESULTS

We recruited 51 panel members from 50 organisations across 12 countries, who brought experience of a range of case study research methods and applications. 26 completed all three Delphi rounds, reaching over 80% consensus on 16 items covering title, abstract, definitions of terms, philosophical assumptions, research question(s), rationale, how context and complexity relates to the intervention, ethical approval, empirical methods, findings, use of theory, generalisability and transferability, researcher perspective and influence, conclusions and recommendations, and funding and conflicts of interest.

CONCLUSION

The 'Triple C' (Case study, Context, Complex interventions) reporting principles recognise that case studies are undertaken in different ways for different purposes and based on different philosophical assumptions. They are designed to be enabling rather than prescriptive, and to make case study evaluation reporting on context and complex health interventions more comprehensive, accessible and useable.

Reporting quality of randomized controlled trials evaluating non-vitamin K oral anticoagulants in atrial fibrillation: a systematic review

BACKGROUND

Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) are subject to bias if they lack methodological quality. Furthermore, optimal and transparent reporting of RCT findings aids their critical appraisal and interpretation. This study aimed to comprehensively evaluate the report quality of RCTs of non-vitamin K oral anticoagulants (NOACs) for the treatment of atrial fibrillation (AF) and to analyze the factors influencing the quality.

METHODS

By searching PubMed, Embase, Web of Science, and Cochrane Library databases RCTs published from inception to 2022 evaluating the efficacy of NOACs on AF were collected. By using the 2010 Consolidated Standards for Reporting Tests (CONSORT) statement, the overall quality of each report was assessed.

RESULTS

Sixty-two RCTs were retrieved in this study. The median of overall quality score in 2010 was 14 (range: 8.5-20). The extent of compliance with the Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials reporting guideline differed substantially across items: 9 items were reported adequately (more than 90%), and 3 were reported adequately in less than 10% of trials. Multivariate linear regression analysis showed that the higher reporting scores were associated with higher journal impact factor (P = 0.01), international collaboration (P < 0.01), and Sources of trial funding (P = 0.02).

CONCLUSIONS

Although a large number of randomized controlled trials of NOACs for the treatment of AF were published after the CONSORT statement in 2010, the overall quality is still not satisfactory, thus weakening their potential utility and may mislead clinical decisions. This survey provides the first hint for researchers conducting trials of NOACs for AF to improve the quality of reports and to actively apply the CONSORT statement.

Improving social justice in observational studies: protocol for the development of a global and Indigenous STROBE-equity reporting guideline

BACKGROUND

Addressing persistent and pervasive health inequities is a global moral imperative, which has been highlighted and magnified by the societal and health impacts of the COVID-19 pandemic. Observational studies can aid our understanding of the impact of health and structural oppression based on the intersection of gender, race, ethnicity, age and other factors, as they frequently collect this data. However, the Strengthening the Reporting of Observational Studies in Epidemiology (STROBE) guideline, does not provide guidance related to reporting of health equity. The goal of this project is to develop a STROBE-Equity reporting guideline extension.

METHODS

We assembled a diverse team across multiple domains, including gender, age, ethnicity, Indigenous background, disciplines, geographies, lived experience of health inequity and decision-making organizations. Using an inclusive, integrated knowledge translation approach, we will implement a five-phase plan which will include: (1) assessing the reporting of health equity in published observational studies, (2) seeking wide international feedback on items to improve reporting of health equity, (3) establishing consensus amongst knowledge users and researchers, (4) evaluating in partnership with Indigenous contributors the relevance to Indigenous peoples who have globally experienced the oppressive legacy of colonization, and (5) widely disseminating and seeking endorsement from relevant knowledge users. We will seek input from external collaborators using social media, mailing lists and other communication channels.

DISCUSSION

Achieving global imperatives such as the Sustainable Development Goals (e.g., SDG 10 Reduced inequalities, SDG 3 Good health and wellbeing) requires advancing health equity in research. The implementation of the STROBE-Equity guidelines will enable a better awareness and understanding of health inequities through better reporting. We will broadly disseminate the reporting guideline with tools to enable adoption and use by journal editors, authors, and funding agencies, using diverse strategies tailored to specific audiences.

The standards of reporting trials in pets (PetSORT): Explanation and elaboration

Well-designed randomized controlled trials (RCTs) provide the best evidence of the primary research designs for evaluating the effectiveness of interventions. However, if RCTs are incompletely reported, the methodological rigor with which they were conducted cannot be reliably evaluated and it may not be possible to replicate the intervention. Missing information also may limit the reader's ability to evaluate the external validity of a trial. Reporting guidelines are available for clinical trials in human healthcare (CONSORT), livestock populations (REFLECT), and preclinical experimental research involving animals (ARRIVE 2.0). The PetSORT guidelines complement these existing guidelines, providing recommendations for reporting controlled trials in pet dogs and cats. The rationale and scientific background are explained for each of the 25 items in the PetSORT reporting recommendations checklist, with examples from well-reported trials.