A Survey of the Prevalence and Impact of Reporting Guideline Endorsement in Pathology Journals

Effect of PRISMA 2009 on reporting quality in systematic reviews and meta-analyses in high-impact dental medicine journals between 1993-2018

INTRODUCTION

The PRISMA guidelines were published in 2009 to address inadequate reporting of key methodological details in systematic reviews and meta-analyses (SRs/MAs). This study sought to assess the impact of PRISMA on the quality of reporting in the full text of dental medicine journals.

METHODS

This study assessed the impact of PRISMA (2009) on thirteen methodological details in SRs/MAs published in the highest-impact dental medicine journals between 1993-2009 (n = 211) and 2012-2018 (n = 618). The study further examined the rate of described use of PRISMA in the abstract or full text of included studies published post- PRISMA and the impact of described use of PRISMA on level of reporting. This study also examined potential effects of inclusion of PRISMA in Instructions for Authors, along with study team characteristics.

RESULTS

The number of items reported in SRs/MAs increased following the publication of PRISMA (pre-PRISMA: M = 7.83, SD = 3.267; post-PRISMA: M = 10.55, SD = 1.4). Post-PRISMA, authors rarely mention PRISMA in abstracts (8.9%) and describe the use of PRISMA in the full text in 59.87% of SRs/MAs. The described use of PRISMA within the full text indicates that its intent (guidance for reporting) is not well understood, with over a third of SRs/MAs (35.6%) describing PRISMA as guiding the conduct of the review. However, any described use of PRISMA was associated with improved reporting. Among author team characteristics examined, only author team size had a positive relationship with improved reporting.

CONCLUSION

Following the 2009 publication of PRISMA, the level of reporting of key methodological details improved for systematic reviews/meta-analyses published in the highest-impact dental medicine journals. The positive relationship between reference to PRISMA in the full text and level of reporting provides further evidence of the impact of PRISMA on improving transparent reporting in dental medicine SRs/MAs.

Real-World Diagnostic Accuracy of the On-Site Cytopathology Advance Report (OSCAR) Procedure Performed in a Multidisciplinary One-Stop Breast Clinic

Fine-needle aspiration (FNA) cytology has been widely used for the diagnosis of breast cancer lesions with the objective of differentiating benign from malignant masses. However, the occurrence of unsatisfactory samples and false-negative rates remains a matter of concern. Major improvements have been made thanks to the implementation of rapid on-site evaluation (ROSE) in multidisciplinary and integrated medical settings such as one-stop clinics (OSCs). In these settings, clinical and radiological examinations are combined with a morphological study performed by interventional pathologists. The aim of our study was to assess the diagnostic accuracy of the on-site cytopathology advance report (OSCAR) procedure on breast FNA cytologic samples in our breast OSC during the first three years (April 2004 till March 2007) of its implementation. To this goal, we retrospectively analyzed a series of 1820 breast masses (1740 patients) radiologically classified according to the American College of Radiology (ACR) BI-RADS lexicon (67.6% being either BI-RADS 4 or 5), sampled by FNA and immediately diagnosed by cytomorphology. The clinicoradiological, cytomorphological, and histological characteristics of all consecutive patients were retrieved from the hospital computerized medical records prospectively registered in the central information system. Histopathological analysis and ultrasound (US) follow-up (FU) were the reference diagnostic tests of the study design. In brief, we carried out either a histopathological verification or an 18-month US evaluation when a benign cytology was concordant with the components of the triple test. Overall, histology was available for 1138 masses, whereas 491 masses were analyzed at the 18-month US-FU. FNA specimens were morphologically nondiagnostic in 3.1%, false negatives were observed in 1.5%, and there was only one false positive (0.06%). The breast cancer prevalence was 62%. Diagnostic accuracy measures of the OSCAR procedure with their 95% confidence intervals (95% CI) were the following: sensitivity (Se) = 97.4% (96.19-98.31); specificity (Sp) = 94.98% (92.94-96.56); positive predictive value (PPV) = 96.80% (95.48-97.81); negative predictive value (NPV) = 95.91% (94.02-97.33); positive likelihood ratio (LR+) = 19.39 (13.75-27.32); negative predictive ratio (LR-) = 0.03 (0.02-0.04), and; accuracy = 96.45% (95.42-97.31). The respective positive likelihood ratio (LR+) for each of the four categories of cytopathological diagnoses (with their 95% CI) which are malignant, suspicious, benign, and nondiagnostic were 540 (76-3827); 2.69 (1.8-3.96); 0.03 (0.02-0.04); and 0.37 (0.2-0.66), respectively. In conclusion, our study demonstrates that the OSCAR procedure is a highly reliable diagnostic approach and a perfect test to select patients requiring core-needle biopsy (CNB) when performed by interventional cytopathologists in a multidisciplinary and integrated OSC setting. Besides drastically limiting the rate of nondiagnostic specimens and diagnostic turn-around time, OSCAR is an efficient and powerful first-line diagnostic approach for patient-centered care.

Bayesian Analysis Reporting Guidelines

Previous surveys of the literature have shown that reports of statistical analyses often lack important information, causing lack of transparency and failure of reproducibility. Editors and authors agree that guidelines for reporting should be encouraged. This Review presents a set of Bayesian analysis reporting guidelines (BARG). The BARG encompass the features of previous guidelines, while including many additional details for contemporary Bayesian analyses, with explanations. An extensive example of applying the BARG is presented. The BARG should be useful to researchers, authors, reviewers, editors, educators and students. Utilization, endorsement and promotion of the BARG may improve the quality, transparency and reproducibility of Bayesian analyses.

Integrating molecular nuclear imaging in clinical research to improve anticancer therapy

Effective patient selection before or early during treatment is important to increasing the therapeutic benefits of anticancer treatments. This selection process is often predicated on biomarkers, predominantly biospecimen biomarkers derived from blood or tumour tissue; however, such biomarkers provide limited information about the true extent of disease or about the characteristics of different, potentially heterogeneous tumours present in an individual patient. Molecular imaging can also produce quantitative outputs; such imaging biomarkers can help to fill these knowledge gaps by providing complementary information on tumour characteristics, including heterogeneity and the microenvironment, as well as on pharmacokinetic parameters, drug-target engagement and responses to treatment. This integrative approach could therefore streamline biomarker and drug development, although a range of issues need to be overcome in order to enable a broader use of molecular imaging in clinical trials. In this Perspective article, we outline the multistage process of developing novel molecular imaging biomarkers. We discuss the challenges that have restricted the use of molecular imaging in clinical oncology research to date and outline future opportunities in this area.

Reporting Recommendations for Tumor Marker Prognostic Studies (REMARK): An Abridged Explanation and Elaboration

The Reporting Recommendations for Tumor Marker Prognostic Studies (REMARK) were developed to address widespread deficiencies in the reporting of such studies. The REMARK checklist consists of 20 items to report for published tumor marker prognostic studies. A detailed paper was published explaining the rationale behind checklist items, providing positive examples and giving empirical evidence of the quality of reporting. REMARK provides a comprehensive overview to educate on good reporting and provide a valuable reference for the many issues to consider when designing, conducting, and analyzing tumor marker studies and prognostic studies in medicine in general. Despite support for REMARK from major cancer journals, prognostic factor research studies remain poorly reported. To encourage dissemination and uptake of REMARK, we have produced this considerably abridged version of the detailed explanatory manuscript, which may also serve as a brief guide to key issues for investigators planning tumor marker prognostic studies. To summarize the current situation, more recent papers investigating the quality of reporting and related reporting guidelines are cited, but otherwise the literature is not updated. Another important impetus for this paper is that it serves as a basis for literal translations into other languages. Translations will help to bring key information to a larger audience world-wide. Many more details can be found in the original paper.

Description of complex interventions: analysis of changes in reporting in randomised trials since 2002

Background

Inadequate description of non-pharmacological complex interventions in trial publications means that they cannot be replicated or assessed for generalisability. There are published guidelines on how to describe an intervention, such as those from the CONSORT Group. However, there have been few evaluations of whether intervention reporting is improving.

Methods

We aimed to assess whether descriptions of multicomponent, non-pharmacological interventions evaluated in randomised trials are improving. To do so, we chose trials of educational and psychotherapeutic interventions to promote adherence to therapy, and compared those published between 2002 and 2007 (Time-1) with those between 2010 and 2015 (Time-2). These time periods were chosen to concord with the publication in 2008 of the CONSORT extension statement of reporting guidelines for non-pharmacological treatment which included items on intervention description. We assessed 19 items, based on the CONSORT Statement and the more recent Template for Intervention Description and Replication Checklist (TIDieR). Two reviewers independently extracted data. We created a quality score of the eight items we considered key information for replication and assessment of generalisability (setting, provider, recipient, comparator, intervention intensity, how it was conducted, existence of a manual or protocol, and detail of whether there was an assessment of fidelity). Score per item was ‘1’ if reported adequately and ‘0’ if not.

Results

Of the eligible trials, 42 were published in Time-1 and 134 published in Time-2. The trials included were published in 112 peer-reviewed journals, 52 of these journals currently require authors to follow the CONSORT Statements, while only one recommended adherence to the TIDieR.

Most items of CONSORT and TIDieR were reported by more than half of the trials at both time points. Few trials reported fidelity. A large proportion of the trials did not report the existence of a manual or protocol, or what the comparator group received. We found no statistically significant improvement in the eight-item quality score (Time-1: mean 5.71 (standard deviation (SD) 1.09), Time-2: 5.87 (SD 1.28), p = 0.49).

Conclusions

We found no overall evidence that reporting the specifics of multicomponent, non-pharmacological interventions is improving. Details to replicate interventions remain lacking, impairing best implementation or meaningful further research. Editorial endorsement of reporting checklists needs to be more extensive.