Role of supplementary material in biomedical journal articles: surveys of authors, reviewers and readers

Quality of reporting and concordance between sources of adverse events in the treatment of moderate-to-severe psoriasis: a cross-sectional study of RCTs from a Cochrane systematic review

OBJECTIVES

Incomplete reporting of safety outcomes in quality and availability of safety reporting in published articles of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) were described in different medical areas. The number of RCTs assessing systemic treatments for psoriasis has increased considerably. Complete and precise reporting of safety is mandatory for the efficacy/harms balance evaluation. We aimed to assess the quality and availability of safety reporting in published RCTs assessing systemic treatments for psoriasis, as well as the concordance of data between published trials and ClinicalTrials.gov (CT).

STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING

We included all RCTs in adults initiated after September 2009, assessing systemic psoriasis treatments compared with placebo or with an active comparator. All trials were selected in duplicate by 2 independent authors from the latest search of the dedicated Cochrane review. We described quality of safety reporting for all published RCTs, using a modified Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials harms scale by using descriptive analysis, and a composite score of 3 key items of safety report. For each RCT, data on adverse events (AEs)/serious AEs (SAEs) were extracted from the publication and CT: total number of AEs/SAEs, patients with AEs/SAEs, SAEs by system organ class classification and deaths. These data were compared between sources for each RCT.

RESULTS

In total, 128 trials were included in the analysis of reporting quality, and 76 in the analysis of data concordance between sources. The median number of reported Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials harms items per article was 9 out of 18 (IQR 7-10), and mean number was 8.39 (SD = 3.02). Items in the methods section were the least frequently reported. The proportion of RCTs reporting the number of SAEs and death were significantly higher on CT than in the published article ((100% (76/76) vs 88.2%, McNemar test, P < .0016). At least 1 discrepancy between sources for SAE safety data was found in 30/76 (39.5%) RCTs.

CONCLUSION

Shortcomings and gaps in the quality of safety reporting in publications of RCTs of systemic psoriasis treatments have been identified. A lack of data in published articles and discrepancies between published articles and CT data complete this finding.

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.

La Universitat de València frente a la práctica de compartir material adicional: análisis a través de las publicaciones científicas del año 2018

Las editoriales, revistas, organismos públicos y privados, así como las instituciones académicas, han promovido en los últimos años la compartición de aquel material que forma parte del proceso de investigación, pero que por diversas razones no se ha podido incluir en la publicación final. No obstante, poco se sabe sobre cuánto de este material adicional efectivamente se comparte y cuáles son sus características. Por ello, el objetivo de este estudio es analizar en qué medida comparte material adicional en publicaciones científicas el personal docente e investigador (PDI) de la Universitat de València (UV). Para ello, se obtuvo una muestra representativa de los 5.679 artículos publicados por el PDI de la UV en el año 2018. Los resultados obtenidos muestran que solo una cuarta parte de los documentos tiene algún tipo de material adicional, con una baja frecuencia de archivos con material reutilizable y focalizados especialmente en áreas del conocimiento específicas. Sin embargo, de estos, una gran mayoría están en el primer cuartil de Journal Cititation Report o Scimago Journal Rank. Se sugiere la necesidad de establecer políticas en la Universitat de València que promuevan la formación sobre el depósito de material adicional y datos de investigación en los artículos de investigación.

Nothing so practical as theory: a rapid review of the use of behaviour change theory in family planning interventions involving men and boys

BACKGROUND

There is growing recognition of the need for interventions that effectively involve men and boys to promote family planning behaviours. Evidence suggests that the most effective behavioural interventions in this field are founded on theoretical principles of behaviour change and gender equality. However, there are few evidence syntheses on how theoretical approaches are applied in this context that might guide best practice in intervention development. This review addresses this gap by examining the application and reporting of theories of behaviour change used by family planning interventions involving men and boys.

METHODS

We adopted a systematic rapid review approach, scoping findings of a previously reported evidence and gap map of intervention reviews (covering 2007-2018) and supplementing this with searches of academic databases and grey literature for reviews and additional studies published between 2007 and 2020. Studies were eligible for inclusion if their title, abstract or keywords referred to a psychosocial or behavioural intervention targeting family planning behaviours, involved males in delivery, and detailed their use of an intervention theory of change.

RESULTS

From 941 non-duplicate records identified, 63 were eligible for inclusion. Most records referenced interventions taking place in low- and middle-income countries (65%). There was a range of intervention theories of change reported, typically targeting individual-level behaviours and sometimes comprising several behaviour change theories and strategies. The most commonly identified theories were Social Cognitive Theory, Social Learning Theory, the Theory of Planned Behaviour, and the Information-Motivation-Behaviour Skills (IMB) Model. A minority of records explicitly detailed gender-informed elements within their theory of change.

CONCLUSION

Our findings highlight the range of prevailing theories of change used for family planning interventions involving men and boys, and the considerable variability in their reporting. Programmers and policy makers would be best served by unified reporting and testing of intervention theories of change. There remains a need for consistent reporting of these to better understand how complex interventions that seek to involve men and boys in family planning may lead to behaviour change.

Is Sharing Datasets the Answer to the New Challenges of Reproductive Biology Research?

Data sharing increases the speed of research and saves time and resources while ensuring transparency and reproducibility. We have analyzed this behavior through the reproductive biology community. Our study revealed that Q1 (44%) and Q2 (36%) JCR reproductive biology journals are the most active journals in data sharing.

Awareness, usage and perceptions of authorship guidelines: an international survey of biomedical authors

OBJECTIVES

To investigate authors' awareness and use of authorship guidelines, and to assess their perceptions of the fairness of authorship decisions.

DESIGN

A cross-sectional online survey.

SETTING AND PARTICIPANTS

Corresponding authors of research papers submitted in 2014 to 18 BMJ journals.

RESULTS

3859/12 646 (31%) researchers responded. They worked in 93 countries and varied in research experience. Of these, 1326 (34%) reported their institution had an authorship policy providing criteria for authorship; 2871 (74%) were 'very familiar' with the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors' authorship criteria and 3358 (87%) reported that guidelines were beneficial when preparing manuscripts. Furthermore, 2609 (68%) reported that their use was 'sometimes' or 'frequently' encouraged in their research setting. However, 2859 respondents (74%) reported that they had been involved in a study at least once where someone was added as an author who had not contributed substantially (honorary authorship), and 1305 (34%) where someone was not listed as an author but had contributed substantially (ghost authorship). Only 740 (19%) reported that they had never experienced either honorary or ghost authorship; 1115 (29%) reported that they had experienced both at least once. There was no clear pattern in experience of authorship misappropriation by continent. For their last coauthored article, 2187 (57%) reported that explicit authorship criteria had been used to determine eligibility, and 3088 (80%) felt that the decision made was fair. When institutions frequently encouraged use of authorship guidelines, authorship eligibility was more likely to be discussed early (817 of 1410, 58%) and perceived as fairer (1273 of 1410, 90%) compared with infrequent encouragement (974 of 2449, 40%, and 1891 of 2449, 74%).

CONCLUSIONS

Despite a high level of awareness of authorship guidelines and criteria, these are not so widely used; more explicit encouragement of their use by institutions may result in more favourable use of guidelines by authors.

Googling the Lifetime Risk of Stroke Around the World

Objective: We aimed to utilize the data on lifetime risk of stroke, from Global Burden of Disease (GBD) 2016, in combination with open data platforms to create an interactive map for use by clinicians and members of the public. Further, we explore the relationship between life expectancy and lifetime risk of stroke. Design: Enhancing visual display of large volume of data. Setting: Worldwide estimates of the lifetime risk of stroke obtained from the GBD 2016. Participants: None. Intervention: None. Methods: Data were extracted from a portable document format (pdf) copy of the GBD article on the lifetime risk of stroke and exported into the R programming environment (version 3.4.4). These data were merged with (i) the world map boundary, (ii) open data platforms from the World Bank (life expectancy and income), and (ii) open data from the United Nation Population Prospects 2017. Further we plotted the relationship between the adjusted lifetime risk of stroke and life expectancy. Outcomes: The map of the global burden of stroke shows a higher lifetime risk of stroke among high-income countries than in low-income countries (https://gntem3.shinyapps.io/strokeglobal/). The greatest risk was among upper-middle-income countries such as China and Eastern and Central European countries such as Latvia and Romania. The lifetime risk of stroke increased in countries with higher life expectancy (β = 0.48 ± 0.047, 95% confidence interval = 0.390-0.574, R ² = 0.38, p < 0.01). Conclusion: Overall life expectancy is a major driver of the lifetime risk of stroke. The interactive map enables clinicians to search information about the lifetime risk of stroke interactively and navigate by zooming in and out, while still retaining high resolution.

The Emergency Medicine Facing the Challenge of Open Science

(1) Background: The availability of research datasets can strengthen and facilitate research processes. This is specifically relevant in the emergency medicine field due to the importance of providing immediate care in critical situations as the very current Coronavirus (COVID-19) Pandemic is showing to the scientific community. This work aims to show which Emergency Medicine journals indexed in Journal Citation Reports (JCR) currently meet data sharing criteria. (2) Methods: This study analyzes the editorial policies regarding the data deposit of the journals in the emergency medicine category of the JCR and evaluates the Supplementary material of the articles published in these journals that have been deposited in the PubMed Central repository. (3) Results: It has been observed that 19 out of the 24 journals contained in the emergency medicine category of Journal Citation Reports are also located in PubMed Central (PMC), yielding a total of 5983 articles. Out of these, only 9.4% of the articles contain supplemental material. Although second quartile journals of JCR emergency medicine category have quantitatively more articles in PMC, the main journals involved in the deposit of supplemental material belong to the first quartile, of which the most used format in the articles is pdf, followed by text documents. (4) Conclusion: This study reveals that data sharing remains an incipient practice in the emergency medicine field, as there are still barriers between researchers to participate in data sharing. Therefore, it is necessary to promote dynamics to improve this practice both qualitatively (the quality and format of datasets) and quantitatively (the quantity of datasets in absolute terms) in research.

Frequency and format of clinical trial results dissemination to patients: a survey of authors of trials indexed in PubMed

OBJECTIVE

Dissemination of research findings is central to research integrity and promoting discussion of new knowledge and its potential for translation into practice and policy. We investigated the frequency and format of dissemination to trial participants and patient groups.

DESIGN

Survey of authors of clinical trials indexed in PubMed in 2014-2015.

RESULTS

Questionnaire emailed to 19 321 authors; 3127 responses received (16%). Of these 3127 trials, 2690 had human participants and 1818 enrolled individual patients. Among the 1818, 498 authors (27%) reported having disseminated results to participants, 238 (13%) planned to do so, 600 (33%) did not plan to, 176 (10%) were unsure and 306 (17%) indicated 'other' or did not answer. Of the 498 authors who had disseminated, 198 (40%) shared academic reports, 252 (51%) shared lay reports, 111 (22%) shared both and 164 (33%) provided individualised study results. Of the 1818 trials, 577 authors (32%) shared/planned to share results with patients outside their trial by direct contact with charities/patient groups, 401 (22%) via patient communities, 845 (46%) via presentations at conferences with patient representation, 494 (27%) via mainstream media and 708 (39%) by online lay summaries. Relatively few of the 1818 authors reported dissemination was suggested by institutional bodies: 314 (17%) of funders reportedly suggested dissemination to trial participants, 252 (14%) to patient groups; 333 (18%) of ethical review boards reportedly suggested dissemination to trial participants, 148 (8%) to patient groups. Authors described many barriers to dissemination.

CONCLUSION

Fewer than half the respondents had disseminated to participants (or planned to) and only half of those who had disseminated shared lay reports. Motivation to disseminate results to participants appears to arise within research teams rather than being incentivised by institutional bodies. Multiple factors need to be considered and various steps taken to facilitate wide dissemination of research to participants.

A survey exploring biomedical editors' perceptions of editorial interventions to improve adherence to reporting guidelines

Background: Improving the completeness of reporting of biomedical research is essential for improving its usability. For this reason, hundreds of reporting guidelines have been created in the last few decades but adherence to these remains suboptimal. This survey aims to inform future evaluations of interventions to improve adherence to reporting guidelines. In particular, it gathers editors' perceptions of a range of interventions at various stages in the editorial process.   Methods: We surveyed biomedical journal editors that were knowledgeable about this topic. The questionnaire included open and closed questions that explored (i) the current practice of their journals, (ii) their perceptions of the ease of implementation and the potential effectiveness of different interventions, (iii) the barriers and facilitators associated with these interventions, and (iv) suggestions for future interventions and incentives. Results: Of the 99 editors invited, 24 (24%) completed the survey. Involving trained editors or administrative staff was deemed the potentially most effective intervention but, at the same time, it was considered moderately difficult to implement due to logistic and resource issues. Participants believed that checking adherence to guidelines goes beyond the role of peer reviewers and could decrease the overall quality of reviews. Journals incentivising adherence, and publishers and medical institutions encouraging journals to adopt strategies to boost adherence were two recurrent themes. Conclusions: Further evaluation of interventions are required. These evaluations could take into account the points raised in this survey.

A survey exploring biomedical editors' perceptions of editorial interventions to improve adherence to reporting guidelines

Background: Improving the completeness of reporting of biomedical research is essential for improving its usability. For this reason, hundreds of reporting guidelines have been created in the last few decades but adherence to these remains suboptimal. This survey aims to inform future evaluations of interventions to improve adherence to reporting guidelines. In particular, it gathers editors' perceptions of a range of interventions at various stages in the editorial process.   Methods: We surveyed biomedical journal editors that were knowledgeable about this topic. The questionnaire included open and closed questions that explored (i) the current practice of their journals, (ii) their perceptions of the ease of implementation and the potential effectiveness of different interventions, (iii) the barriers and facilitators associated with these interventions, and (iv) suggestions for future interventions and incentives. Results: Of the 99 editors invited, 24 (24%) completed the survey. Involving trained editors or administrative staff was deemed the potentially most effective intervention but, at the same time, it was considered moderately difficult to implement due to logistic and resource issues. Participants believed that checking adherence to guidelines goes beyond the role of peer reviewers and could decrease the overall quality of reviews. Journals incentivising adherence, and publishers and medical institutions encouraging journals to adopt strategies to boost adherence were two recurrent themes. Conclusions: Further evaluation of interventions are required. These evaluations could take into account the points raised in this survey.