Standards of reporting: the use of CONSORT PRO and CERT in individuals living with osteoporosis

The quality and pattern of rehabilitation interventions prescribed for post-COVID-19 infection patients: A systematic review and meta-analysis

Patients with prior COVID-19 infection may present with lasting multisystem symptoms that require intervention and includes exercise rehabilitation. The aim of this systematic review was to investigate the quality of articles, with emphasis on exercise rehabilitation, and conduct a meta-analysis on experimental and observational rehabilitation intervention studies on cardiorespiratory fitness and pulmonary function in post-COVID-19 infection patients. This systematic review used the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses 2020 guidelines for evaluating rehabilitation interventions in clinical practice. A methodical search of cohort and experimental studies occurred from January 2019 up to March 2023. Thirty-two studies were included for complete analysis. The quality of the eligible studies for complete review was fair overall. The studies did not provide a detailed account of key descriptors of exercise such as volume, progression, motivational strategies, adherence and replication. There was a significant difference in the 6-minute walk test (Mean difference (MD) = 51.69 m; confidence intervals (CIs) = 36.99 to 66.38; p < 0.001, level of heterogeneity (I2) = 0), percent of predicted forced expiratory volume in one second (MD = 7.95%; CIs = 3.46 to 12.44; p = 0.0005, I2 = 65%) and percent of predicted forced vital capacity (MD = 3.49%; 95% CI = 1.25 to 5.73; p = 0.002; I2 = 37%) between the experiment and control groups. The current evidence suggests that rehabilitation interventions significantly improve cardiorespiratory fitness and pulmonary function in post-COVID-19 infection patients; however, there is a need for conceptualising high-quality and long-term rehabilitation interventions, especially exercise interventions.

Effectiveness of therapeutic exercise for the management of cervicogenic headache: A systematic review

OBJECTIVE

The main aim of this systematic review is to evaluate the effectiveness of therapeutic exercise for managing pain and disability in patients with cervicogenic headache (CEH).

METHODS

A protocol for this systematic review was published in PROSPERO (CRD42019122703). PRISMA and AMSTAR2 standards were followed. Based on an extensive systematic search in five databases (EMBASE, MEDLINE, CINHAL, PsychInfo and SportDISCUS) and the CENTRAL trial register, two reviewers carefully and independently assessed, selected results, collected data, rated the risk of bias (RoB) of included studies with the Cochrane risk of bias tool, synthesized the available evidence, and rated it using GRADE methodology.

RESULTS

A total of 12 manuscripts, reporting on 11 studies were included. Most studies showed a high risk of bias (63,63%). Additionally, a great deal of heterogeneity was observed regarding interventions, comparisons, and outcomes and thus, results could not be synthesized in meta-analyses. The quality of the evidence was found to be from low to very low. Significant differences with large effect sizes were found when comparing multimodal exercise vs. control groups on headache outcomes (SMD = 0.73; 95%CI [0.31, 1.14] for headache intensity and SMD = 0.98; 95%CI [0.56, 1.41], for headache frequency).

CONCLUSIONS

Findings indicate that therapeutic exercise may be effective to achieve clinically relevant reductions in headache intensity and frequency as well as disability for patients suffering from cervicogenic headache. However, more high-quality research is needed to gain confidence in this finding and possibly determine optimal types and dosage of therapeutic exercise.

CORE-CERT Items as a Minimal Requirement for Replicability of Exercise Interventions: Results From Application to Exercise Studies for Breast Cancer Patients

ABSTRACT

Hacke, C, Knuth, J, Bucher, M, Weisser, B, and Schmidt, T. CORE-CERT items as a minimal requirement for replicability of exercise interventions: results from application to exercise studies for breast cancer patients. J Strength Cond Res XX(X): 000-000, 2022-Exercise interventions have been demonstrated to be useful in the prevention and therapy for multiple different diseases. The Consensus on Exercise Reporting Template (CERT) has been developed as the reporting guideline for exercise studies. The main goals of CERT are to ensure completeness of reporting, to enable interpretation of exercise programs, and to allow extraction of data for meta-analyses and the development of guidelines. However, for clinicians, the most important aspect of good reporting might be the replicability of protocols for their patients. This study was designed to determine the core components of exercise interventions for breast cancer, which are considered as minimal requirement for replicability in practice. The original items of CERT were specified, subdivided, or extended by additional key items to develop a "CORE-CERT checklist." The original CERT and our CORE-CERT were then applied to 29 exercise RCTs for breast cancer obtained from the most frequently cited and most recent meta-analyses in current guidelines. The reporting quality using both templates were examined. Mean original CERT score was 11 of 19 (59%) of completed items and 13 of 19 (68%) of reporting completeness for CORE-CERT. Reporting quality using CORE-CERT items was approximately 8% higher, indicating a more precise description of items in CORE-CERT. Differences concerned exercise dosage, nonexercise components, supervision, and description of each exercise. We propose a novel CORE-CERT guideline necessary for the replicability of exercise interventions in clinical practice. The application of CORE-CERT demonstrated a slightly better but still insufficient reporting quality of exercise interventions for breast cancer.

Reporting of Patient-Reported Outcome Measures in Randomized Controlled Trials on Shoulder Rotator Cuff Injuries Is Suboptimal and Requires Standardization

Purpose

Methods

Results

Conclusions

Clinical Relevance

Knowledge translation concerns for the CONSORT-PRO extension reporting guidance: a review of reviews

This review of reviews aimed to appraise the use of the CONSORT-PRO Extension as an evaluation tool for assessing the reporting of patient-reported outcome (PROs) in publications, and to describe the reporting of PRO research across reviews. We also outlined how variation in such evaluations impacts knowledge translation and may lead to potential misuse of the CONSORT-PRO Extension. We systematically searched Medline, Pubmed and CINAHL from 2013 to 2025 March 2021 for reviews of the completeness of reporting of PRO endpoints according to CONSORT-PRO criteria. Two reviewers extracted details of each review, the percentage of included studies that addressed each CONSORT-PRO item, and key recommendations from each review. Fourteen reviews met inclusion criteria, and only six of these used the full CONSORT-PRO checklist with minimal justified modifications. The remaining eight studies made significant or unjustified adjustments to the CONSORT-PRO Extension. Review studies also varied in how they scored multi-component CONSORT-PRO items. CONSORT-PRO items were often unreported in trial reports, and certain CONSORT-PRO items were reported less often than others. The reporting of statistical approaches to dealing with missing PRO data were poor in RCTs included in all 14 review articles. Studies reviewing PRO publications often omitted recommended CONSORT-PRO items from their evaluations, which may cause confusion among readers regarding how best to report their PRO research according to the CONSORT-PRO extension. Many trials published since CONSORT-PRO's release did not report recommended CONSORT-PRO items, which may lead to misinterpretation and consequently to research waste.

If exercise is medicine, why don't we know the dose? An overview of systematic reviews assessing reporting quality of exercise interventions in health and disease

OBJECTIVE

To determine how well exercise interventions are reported in trials in health and disease.

DESIGN

Overview of systematic reviews.

DATA SOURCES

PubMed, EMBASE, CINAHL, SPORTDiscus and PsycINFO from inception until June 2021.

ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA

Reviews of any health condition were included if they primarily assessed quality of exercise intervention reporting using the Consensus on Exercise Reporting Template (CERT) or the Template for Intervention Description and Replication (TIDieR). We assessed review quality using a modified version of A MeaSurement Tool to Assess systematic Reviews.

RESULTS

We identified 7804 studies and included 28 systematic reviews. The median (IQR) percentage of CERT and TIDieR items appropriately reported was 24% (19%) and 49% (33%), respectively. TIDieR items 1, Brief name (median=100%, IQR 4) and 2, Why (median=98%, IQR 6), as well as CERT item 4, Supervision and delivery (median=68%, IQR 89), were the best reported. For replication of exercise interventions, TIDieR item 8, When and how much, was moderately well reported (median=62%, IQR 68) although CERT item 8, Description of each exercise to enable replication (median=23%, IQR 44) and item 13, Detailed description of the exercise intervention (median=24%, IQR 66) were poorly reported. Quality of systematic reviews ranged from moderate to critically low quality.

CONCLUSION

Exercise interventions are poorly reported across a range of health conditions. If exercise is medicine, then how it is prescribed and delivered is unclear, potentially limiting its translation from research to practice.

PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER

CRD42021261285; Open Science Framework: osf.io/my3ec/.

Application of the Templates TIDieR and CERT Reveal Incomplete Reporting and Poor Replicability of Exercise Interventions for Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus

BACKGROUND

Exercise is strongly recommended for the management of type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM). However, incomplete intervention reporting in clinical trials limits the replication of exercise protocols. As previously demonstrated by us for exercise and hypertension, the reporting quality might also be insufficient in studies with respect to T2DM and exercise.

OBJECTIVE

The aim of the study was to assess the completeness of exercise intervention reporting in randomized controlled trials (RCTs) for T2DM.

METHODS

Two independent reviewers applied the Consensus on Exercise Reporting Template (CERT) and the template for intervention description and replication (TIDieR) to 23 exercise trials obtained from the most recent and frequently cited meta-analysis in current guidelines. The completeness of reporting was evaluated, focusing on the F.I.T.T. components (frequency, intensity, time, type). Interrater agreement and associations with publication year and journal impact factor were examined.

RESULTS

Mean CERT score was 11/19 (range 5-17), and 8/12 (range 4-12) for TIDieR. F.I.T.T. components were almost completely described, whereas overall completeness of exercise reporting was 60% and 68% (CERT and TIDieR). Replication of each exercise of the respective program was not possible in 52% of interventions. The majority of items had shown excellent agreement. No associations with publication year or impact factor were found.

CONCLUSION

Exercise interventions were not found to be sufficiently reported in RCTs that currently guide clinical practice in T2DM. Replication in further studies or clinical practice is limited due to poor exercise description. We suggest the use of more specific CERT for reporting results of exercise interventions. Further refinement for internal diseases is needed to better describe exercise interventions.

Intervention reporting and dissemination of information for the management of hand osteoarthritis

INTRODUCTION

A variety of exercise programs are recognized to be effective for the management of hand osteoarthritis (HOA). It is important to report the essential elements of these exercise programs for clinicians to replicate properly and facilitate their implementation with individuals who suffers from HOA, especially if they are found to be effective programs.

PURPOSE OF THE STUDY

The objective of this article was to assess content reporting using three exercise reporting standardized assessment tools among exercise interventions randomized controlled trials (RCTs) involving individuals with HOA.

STUDY DESIGN

A descriptive study was used.

METHODS

Two pairs of trained assessors independently identified, selected, and scored the reporting quality of the exercise programs of RCTs on the management of HOA using three standardized assessment tools: the Consensus on Exercise Reporting Template (CERT) checklist, Consensus on Therapeutic Exercise Training (CONTENT) scale, and Template for Intervention Description and Replication (TIDieR) checklist to review the quality of reporting of 11 RCTs included in a recent Ottawa Panel guideline.

RESULTS

Based on consensus reached by two different pairs of reviewers and an arbitrator, the mean total scores for the 11 included exercise programs were reported as follows: the mean total score for the CERT, CONTENT, and TIDieR was 10.58/19 ± 4.34, 3.27/9 ± 1.90, and 5.92/12 ± 2.54, respectively. The overall Pearson's Correlation (r) between the methodological quality and intervention reporting was 0.86, 0.71, and 0.54 for moderate-to-high RCTs and 0.47, 0.79, and 0.42 for fair-to-poor methodological quality for the CERT checklist, CONTENT scale, and TIDieR checklist, respectively.

CONCLUSIONS

The intervention reporting in the management of HOA is poor among low-, moderate-, and high-quality clinical trials. The least reported information was intervention parameters related to behavior change. Improving reporting is recommended to ensure replication of effective exercise programs to enhance quality of life of individuals with HOA.

The management of lower back pain using pilates method: assessment of content exercise reporting in RCTs

PURPOSE

To evaluate the quality of the reporting of exercise interventions with Pilates method for the treatment of lower back pain (LBP) in adults.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Two independent evaluators selected randomized controlled trials (RCTs) of moderate and high methodological quality included in a Cochrane Systematic Review (SR) and from an additional updated search in the following databases: CENTRAL, MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL, PEDro and SPORTDiscus. Three assessment tools (Consensus on Therapeutic Exercise Training (CONTENT) scale, Template for Intervention Description and Replication (TIDieR) checklist and Consensus on Exercise Reporting Template (CERT) checklist) were utilized by three pairs of two independent researchers trained. The scales' concordance was measured using the Kappa coefficient.

RESULTS

Ten RCTs were included. The CONTENT scale score was 5.3 (± 1.33) out of 9 points; the TIDieR checklist was 8.5 (± 1.71) out of 12 points and the CERT checklist was 9.5 (± 3.62) out of 19 points. The CONTENT and CERT had moderate concordance, while there was fair concordance between the other tools.

CONCLUSIONS

The overall reporting quality for the Pilates exercises in ten moderate-to-high quality RTCs for the management of LBP was low according to CONTENT scale and CERT checklist and high according to TIDieR checklist.Implications for RehabilitationReporting of Pilates exercise program in moderate-to-high quality RCTs for the management of lower back pain remains incomplete.Pilates exercise program should be personalized and contextualized to individual participants.There may be a need to consider adding to or combining the information available from various trials.

Assessing the reporting quality of physical activity programs in randomized controlled trials for the management of juvenile idiopathic arthritis using three standardized assessment tools

BACKGROUND

The reporting quality of physical activity (PA) programs in randomized controlled trials (RCTs) for the management of juvenile idiopathic arthritis (JIA) remains unknown. This study aimed to assess and compare the reporting quality of PA programs in RCTs for the management of JIA using three difference standardized assessment tools, and to describe the elements that were similar and different between these tools.

METHODS

A systematic search was conducted for moderate-to high-quality RCTs of PA programs in JIA, published up until January 2019. Two reviewers independently included 10 RCTs and scored the reporting quality of PA programs using the following tools: Consensus on Exercise Reporting Template (CERT) checklist, Consensus on Therapeutic Exercise Training (CONTENT) scale, and Template for Intervention Description and Replication (TIDieR) checklist.

RESULTS

Results showed that reporting of PA programs in 10 moderate- to high-quality RCTs for JIA management remains incomplete. The average reporting quality (± standard deviation) for all RCTs combined was moderate for the three standardized assessment tools with 70.8 (±14.3)% for the TIDieR checklist, 53.2 (±20.2)% for the CERT checklist, and 70.0 (±18.9)% for the CONTENT scale. Despite some overlap, the three standardized assessment tools (TIDieR, CERT, CONTENT) included different elements resulting in different scores. All tools assess elements linked to PA programs (provider, location, timing, personalization and adherence), but the CERT checklist includes other essential elements (e.g., additional resources, motivational strategies, adverse events).

CONCLUSIONS

The lack of complete reporting of PA programs in RCTs for the management of JIA and the variation in scores and assessed elements among standardized assessment tools show the need to improve reporting. Using the most comprehensive standardized tool (i.e., the CERT) and providing accessible supplemental information on PA programs may improve the reporting quality of PA programs in RCTs and help reproduce PA programs in research and clinical practice.

Guidelines for Editing Biomedical Journals: Recommended by Academy of Medical Sciences of Bosnia and Herzegovina

Background:

Enormous number of medical journals published around the globe requires standardization of editing practice.

Objective:

The aim of this article was to enlist main principles of editing biomedical scientific journals adopted at annual meeting of Academy of Medical Sciences of Bosnia & Herzegovina (AMSB&H).

Methods:

The evidence for writing this Guideline was systematically searched for during September 2020 in the PUBMED and GOOGLE SCHOLAR databases. The inclusion criteria were: original studies, systematic reviews, invited expert opinions, guidelines and editorials. The exclusion criteria were narrative reviews and uninvited opinion articles. The retrieved evidence was analyzed by members of the AMSB&H, then discussed at 2020 annual meeting of the AMSB&H and adopted by nominal group technique.

Results:

In total 14 recommendations were made, based on A to C class of evidence. The editors should educate potential authors and instruct them how to structure their manuscript, how to write every segment of the manuscript, and take care about correct use of statistical tests. Plagiarism detection softwares should be used regularly, and statistical and technical editing should be rigorous and thorough. International standards of reporting specific types of studies should be followed, and principles of ethical and responsible behavior of editors, reviewers and authors should be published on the journal’s web site. The editors should insist on registration of clinical studies before submission, and check whether non-essential personal information is removed from the articles; when essential personal information has to be included, an article should not be published without signed informed consent by the patient to whom these information relate.

Conclusions:

Principles of editing biomedical scientific journals recommended in this guideline should serve as one of the means of improving medical journals’ quality.

The importance of patient-reported outcomes in clinical trials and strategies for future optimization

Patient-reported outcomes (PROs) can be included in clinical trials as primary or secondary endpoints and are increasingly recognized by regulators, clinicians, and patients as valuable tools to collect patient-centered data. PROs provide unique information on the impact of a medical condition and its treatment from the patient's perspective; therefore, PROs can be included in clinical trials to ensure the impact of a trial intervention is comprehensively assessed. This review first discusses examples of how PRO endpoints have added value to clinical trial interpretation. Second, it describes the problems with current practices in designing, implementing, and reporting PRO studies, and how these problems may be addressed by complying with guidance for protocol development, selecting appropriate PRO measures to match clinically motivated PRO hypotheses, minimizing the rates of avoidable missing PRO data, analyzing and interpreting PRO data, and transparently reporting PRO findings.

Exercise rehabilitation programmes for pulmonary hypertension: a systematic review of intervention components and reporting quality

Objectives

To identify the components, and assess the reporting quality, of exercise training interventions for people living with pulmonary hypertension.

Design

Systematic review with analysis of intervention reporting quality using the Consensus on Exercise Reporting Template (CERT).

Data sources

Eligible studies in the Cochrane Systematic Review of exercise-based rehabilitation for pulmonary hypertension, updated with a new search of relevant databases from 1 August 2016 to 15 January 2018.

Eligibility criteria

Peer-reviewed journal articles of randomised and non-randomised controlled trials, and non-controlled prospective observational studies, investigating dynamic exercise training interventions in adult humans with diagnosed pulmonary hypertension, reporting on at least one physiological and/or psychosocial outcome.

Results

Interventions typically involved cycle ergometry and walking. They were delivered as 3-week inpatient, or outpatient and/or home-based programmes, lasting for 4–15 weeks. Components relating specifically to exercise prescription were described satisfactorily and in more detail than motivational/behavioural change strategies, adherence and fidelity. Mean CERT score was 13.1 (range 8–17) out of a possible maximum score of 19. No studies fully reported every aspect of an exercise intervention to the standard recommended by CERT.

Summary/conclusion

Considerable variability was evident in the components and reporting quality of interventions for exercise rehabilitation studies in pulmonary hypertension. Interventional studies using exercise training should pay greater attention to describing motivational/behavioural change strategies, adherence and fidelity. Detailed description of these parameters is essential for the safe and effective replication of exercise rehabilitation interventions for pulmonary hypertension in clinical practice.

Trial registration number

CRD42018085558.