Quality of Reporting and Study Design of CKD Cohort Studies Assessing Mortality in the Elderly Before and After STROBE: A Systematic Review

Risk Factors for Suicide Among Professional Athletes

BACKGROUND

Suicide is a major public health concern that affects all demographics. Risk factors for suicide in professional athletes are poorly understood compared with the general population. The goal of this study was (1) to explore the current literature on risk factors for suicide in the population of professional athletes and (2) to formulate a proposed suicide risk identification tool as the first step in the production of a validated screening method specific to this population.

METHODS

A comprehensive literature search for relevant publications was carried out through 7 databases.

RESULTS

There is some evidence to suggest that retirement, anabolic androgenic steroid use, sexual abuse victimization, health problems, financial issues, relationship issues, having immigrant parents, having a financially disadvantaged childhood, using self-blame or behavioral disengagement as a coping strategy, changes in appetite or weight, sleep problems, reduced competitiveness, and thinking about a career after retirement are potential risk factors for suicide in this population. There is limited evidence to suggest that having a career in elite or professional sports, participation in contact sports, and participating in specific sports that are not associated with a higher suspected prevalence of performance-enhancing drug use are potential risk factors.

CONCLUSIONS

This study identified potential risk factors for suicide among elite and professional athletes. These findings were used to help formulate a proposed suicide risk identification tool. Future research is recommended to explore and clarify specific risk factors for suicide in this population and to test the validity of the proposed tool.

Adherence of SARS-CoV-2 Seroepidemiologic Studies to the ROSES-S Reporting Guideline During the COVID-19 Pandemic

BACKGROUND

Complete reporting of seroepidemiologic studies is critical to their utility in evidence synthesis and public health decision making. The Reporting of Seroepidemiologic studies-SARS-CoV-2 (ROSES-S) guideline is a checklist that aims to improve reporting in SARS-CoV-2 seroepidemiologic studies. Adherence to the ROSES-S guideline has not yet been evaluated.

OBJECTIVES

This study aims to evaluate the completeness of SARS-CoV-2 seroepidemiologic study reporting by the ROSES-S guideline during the COVID-19 pandemic, determine whether guideline publication was associated with reporting completeness, and identify study characteristics associated with reporting completeness.

METHODS

A random sample from the SeroTracker living systematic review database was evaluated. For each reporting item in the guideline, the percentage of studies that were adherent was calculated, as well as median and interquartile range (IQR) adherence across all items and by item domain. Beta regression analyses were used to evaluate predictors of adherence to ROSES-S.

RESULTS

One hundred and ninety-nine studies were analyzed. Median adherence was 48.1% (IQR 40.0%-55.2%) per study, with overall adherence ranging from 8.8% to 72.7%. The laboratory methods domain had the lowest median adherence (33.3% [IQR 25.0%-41.7%]). The discussion domain had the highest median adherence (75.0% [IQR 50.0%-100.0%]). Reporting adherence to ROSES-S before and after guideline publication did not significantly change. Publication source (p < 0.001), study risk of bias (p = 0.001), and sampling method (p = 0.004) were significantly associated with adherence.

CONCLUSIONS

Completeness of reporting in SARS-CoV-2 seroepidemiologic studies was suboptimal. Publication of the ROSES-S guideline was not associated with changes in reporting practices. Authors should improve adherence to the ROSES-S guideline with support from stakeholders.

Are reporting guidelines used in infectious diseases publications? An analysis of more than 1,000 articles

Objective

To assess whether 16 reporting guidelines of Enhancing the QUAlity and Transparency Of Health Research (EQUATOR) were used in infectious diseases research publications.

Design

This cross-sectional, audit-type study assessed articles published in five infectious diseases journals in 2019.

Methods

All articles were manually reviewed to assess if a reporting guideline was advisable and searched for the names and acronyms of 16 reporting guidelines. An "advisable use rate" was calculated.

Results

We reviewed 1,251 manuscripts across five infectious diseases journals. Guideline use was advisable for 973 (75%) articles. Reporting guidelines were used in 85 articles, 6.1% of total articles, and 8% (95% CI 6%-9%) of articles for which guidelines were advised. The advisable use rate ranged from 0.06 to 0.17 for any guideline, 0-0.08 for CONSORT, 0.53-1 for Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA), and 0-0.66 for Transparent reporting of a multivariable prediction model for individual prognosis or diagnosis (TRIPOD) : The TRIPOD statement. No trends were observed across the five journals.

Conclusions

The use of EQUATOR-related reporting guidelines is infrequent, despite journals and publishers promoting their usage. Whether this finding is attributable to knowledge, acceptance, or perceived usefulness of the guidelines still needs to be clarified.

Evaluation of reporting quality of cohort studies using real-world data based on RECORD: systematic review

OBJECTIVE

Real-world data (RWD) and real-world evidence (RWE) have been paid more and more attention in recent years. We aimed to evaluate the reporting quality of cohort studies using real-world data (RWD) published between 2013 and 2021 and analyze the possible factors.

METHODS

We conducted a comprehensive search in Medline and Embase through the OVID interface for cohort studies published from 2013 to 2021 on April 29, 2022. Studies aimed at comparing the effectiveness or safety of exposure factors in the real-world setting were included. The evaluation was based on the REporting of studies Conducted using Observational Routinely-collected health Data (RECORD) statement. Agreement for inclusion and evaluation was calculated using Cohen's kappa. Pearson chi-square test or Fisher's exact test and Mann-Whitney U test were used to analyze the possible factors, including the release of RECORD, journal IFs, and article citations. Bonferroni's correction was conducted for multiple comparisons. Interrupted time series analysis was performed to display the changes in report quality over time.

RESULTS

187 articles were finally included. The mean ± SD of the percentage of adequately reported items in the 187 articles was 44.7 ± 14.3 with a range of 11.1-87%. Of 23 items, the adequate reporting rate of 10 items reached 50%, and the reporting rate of some vital items was inadequate. After Bonferroni's correction, the reporting of only one item significantly improved after the release of RECORD and there was no significant improvement in the overall report quality. For interrupted time series analysis, there were no significant changes in the slope (p = 0.42) and level (p = 0.12) of adequate reporting rate. The journal IFs and citations were respectively related to 2 areas and the former significantly higher in high-reporting quality articles.

CONCLUSION

The endorsement of the RECORD cheklist was generally inadequate in cohort studies using RWD and has not improved in recent years. We encourage researchers to endorse relevant guidelines when utilizing RWD for research.

Adherence to multidisciplinary care in a prospective chronic kidney disease cohort is associated with better outcomes

INTRODUCTION

The Renal Healthcare Program Uruguay (NRHP-UY) is a national, multidisciplinary program that provides care to chronic kidney disease (CKD) patients. In this study, we report the global results of CKD patient outcomes and a comparison between those treated at the NRHP-UY Units, with those patients who were initially included in the program but did not adhere to follow up.

METHODS

A cohort of not-on dialysis CKD patients included prospectively in the NRHP-UY between October 1st 2004 and September 30th 2017 was followed-up until September 30th 2019. Two groups were compared: a) Nephrocare Group: Patients who had at least one clinic visit during the first year on NRHP-UY (n = 11174) and b) Non-adherent Group: Patients who were informed and accepted to be included but had no subsequent data registered after admission (n = 3485). The study was approved by the Ethics Committee and all patients signed an informed consent. Outcomes were studied with Logistic and Cox´s regression analysis, Fine and Gray competitive risk and propensity-score matching tests.

RESULTS

14659 patients were analyzed, median age 70 (60-77) years, 56.9% male. The Nephrocare Group showed improved achievement of therapeutic goals, ESKD was more frequent (HR 2.081, CI 95%1.722-2.514) as planned kidney replacement therapy (KRT) start (OR 2.494, CI95% 1.591-3.910), but mortality and the combined event (death and ESKD) were less frequent (HR 0.671, CI95% 0.628-0.717 and 0.777, CI95% 0.731-0.827) (p = 0.000) compared to the Non-adherent group. Results were similar in the propensity-matched group: ESKD (HR 2.041, CI95% 1.643-2.534); planned kidney replacement therapy (KRT) start (OR 2.191, CI95% 1.322-3.631) death (HR 0.692, CI95% 0.637-0.753); combined event (HR 0.801, CI95% 0.742-0.865) (p = 0.000).

CONCLUSION

Multidisciplinary care within the NRHP-UY is associated with timely initiation of KRT and lower mortality in single outcomes, combined analysis, and propensity-matched analysis.

Poor reporting quality of observational clinical studies comparing treatments of COVID-19 – a retrospective cross-sectional study

Background

During the COVID-19 pandemic, the scientific world is in urgent need for new evidence on the treatment of COVID patients. The reporting quality is crucial for transparent scientific publication. Concerns of data integrity, methodology and transparency were raised. Here, we assessed the adherence of observational studies comparing treatments of COVID 19 to the STROBE checklist in 2020.

Methods

Design: We performed a retrospective, cross-sectional study. Setting: We conducted a systematic literature search in the Medline database. This study was performed at the RWTH Aachen University Hospital, Department of Anaesthesiology Participants: We extracted all observational studies on the treatment of COVID-19 patients from the year 2020. Main outcome measures: The adherence of each publication to the STROBE checklist items was analysed. The journals’ impact factor (IF), the country of origin, the kind of investigated treatment and the month of publication were assessed.

Results

We analysed 147 observational studies and found a mean adherence of 45.6% to the STROBE checklist items. The percentage adherence per publication correlated significantly with the journals’ IF (point estimate for the difference between 1^st and 4^th quartile 11.07%, 95% CI 5.12 to 17.02, p < 0.001). U.S. American authors gained significantly higher adherence to the checklist than Chinese authors, mean difference 9.10% (SD 2.85%, p = 0.023).

Conclusions

We conclude a poor reporting quality of observational studies on the treatment of COVID-19 throughout the year 2020. A considerable improvement is mandatory.

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s12874-021-01501-9.

Global health workforce research: Comparative analyses of the scientific publication trends in PubMed

AIM

To analyse the amount of Human Resources for Health (HRH) research publication trends [1990-2019], compared to the broader health policy, systems, and services research (HPSSR).

METHODS

PubMed and its indexation system with Medical Subject Headings (MeSH) are used for this time-trend study. Searches combine MeSH terms for research publications and HPSSR or HRH subjects, except education. Sub-group searches are conducted on: funding support, and high- versus low- and middle-income countries (HICs vs. LMICs). Linear regressions are used for the analysis.

RESULTS

HRH research publications rose exponentially (r²  = 0.94; p < 0.001) from 129 yearly publications in 1990, to 867 in 2018. Yet, HRH research publications had a logarithmic decrease (p < 0.001) in percentage of broader HPSSR publications, from 2.5% to 1.5% [1990-2018]. Funding support increased significantly and linearly (p < 0.001 r²  = 0.88), up to 44% in 2018. The percentage of HRH research publications addressing LMICs grew linearly (p < 0.001; r²  = 0.75), up to 23% in 2018.

CONCLUSION

HRH research publications in the PubMed database increased especially in the more recent years but did not outpace (in earlier times was outpaced) by the growth of HPSSR publications overall. Yearly, HICs still accounted for more than three-quarters of HRH research. These findings can inform global and health research policies.

A novel tool to assess the quality of RWE to guide the management of retinal disease

Despite the growing importance of real-world evidence (RWE) for guiding clinical decisions in retinal disease, there is currently no widely used guidance available for assessing the quality and relevance of RWE studies in ophthalmology. This paper summarizes the development of a user-friendly tool that facilitates assessment of the quality of available RWE for neovascular age-related macular degeneration (nAMD), diabetic macular oedema (DME) and retinal vein occlusion (RVO). A literature search was conducted to identify tools developed to assess the quality of RWE, in order to identify the most appropriate framework on which to base this tool. The Good Research for Comparative Effectiveness (GRACE) guidelines was chosen for this purpose as it is designed to assess the quality of observational studies and has been extensively validated, including demonstration of strong sensitivity and specificity. The GRACE guidelines were adapted to develop a straightforward tabular tool that allows simple assessment and comparison of the quality of published evidence in retinal disease for researchers and physicians alike, and includes guidance on treatment details, outcome measures, study population, and controlling for bias. The newly developed tool provides a simple method to support assessment of the strength of evidence and certainty of conclusions drawn from RWE in retinal disease, to ensure clinical decision-making is influenced by the highest quality evidence.

Reporting practices for genomic epidemiology of tuberculosis: a systematic review of the literature using STROME-ID guidelines as a benchmark

BACKGROUND

Pathogen genomics have become increasingly important in infectious disease epidemiology and public health. The Strengthening the Reporting of Molecular Epidemiology for Infectious Diseases (STROME-ID) guidelines were developed to outline a minimum set of criteria that should be reported in genomic epidemiology studies to facilitate assessment of study quality. We evaluate such reporting practices, using tuberculosis as an example.

METHODS

For this systematic review, we initially searched MEDLINE, Embase Classic, and Embase on May 3, 2017, using the search terms "tuberculosis" and "genom* sequencing". We updated this initial search on April 23, 2019, and also included a search of bioRxiv at this time. We included studies in English, French, or Spanish that recruited patients with microbiologically confirmed tuberculosis and used whole genome sequencing for typing of strains. Non-human studies, conference abstracts, and literature reviews were excluded. For each included study, the number and proportion of fulfilled STROME-ID criteria were recorded by two reviewers. A comparison of the mean proportion of fulfilled STROME-ID criteria before and after publication of the STROME-ID guidelines (in 2014) was done using a two-tailed t test. Quasi-Poisson regression and tobit regression were used to examine associations between study characteristics and the number and proportion of fulfilled STROME-ID criteria. This study was registered with PROSPERO, CRD42017064395.

FINDINGS

976 titles and abstracts were identified by our primary search, with an additional 16 studies identified in bioRxiv. 114 full texts (published between 2009 and 2019) were eligible for inclusion. The mean proportion of STROME-ID criteria fulfilled was 50% (SD 12; range 16-75). The proportion of criteria fulfilled was similar before and after STROME-ID publication (51% [SD 11] vs 46% [14], p=0·26). The number of criteria reported (among those applicable to all studies) was not associated with impact factor, h-index, country of affiliation of senior author, or sample size of isolates. Similarly, the proportion of criteria fulfilled was not associated with these characteristics, with the exception of a sample size of isolates of 277 or more (the highest quartile). In terms of reproducibility, 100 (88%) studies reported which bioinformatic tools were used, but only 33 (33%) reported corresponding version numbers. Sequencing data were available for 86 (75%) studies.

INTERPRETATION

The reporting of STROME-ID criteria in genomic epidemiology studies of tuberculosis between 2009 and 2019 was low, with implications for assessment of study quality. The considerable proportion of studies without bioinformatics version numbers or sequencing data available highlights a key concern for reproducibility.

Adherence to the Strengthening the Reporting of Observational Studies in Epidemiology Statement in Observational Studies Published in Iranian Medical Journals

Background

Although much medical knowledge comes from observational research, such studies are more prone to confounding and bias than others. This study was conducted to evaluate the adherence of the observational studies published in Iranian medical journals to the STROBE (strengthening the reporting of observational studies in epidemiology) statement.

Methods

In this cross-sectional study, we selected 150 articles of Iranian medical journals, using multistage sampling from Aug 2016 to Jun 2017. The reported items of the STROBE statement in the articles was determined and considered as the adherence of the articles to the statement. The adherence of the articles with different characteristics was compared.

Results

The adherence of the articles to the statement varied from 24% to 68% with a mean score of 48%±9%. The lowest mean scores were found in the Result (36%) and Method (49%) sections. The adherence was significantly better in the articles published in the journals indexed in PubMed or Web of Knowledge (ISI) databases (P<0.001) and those written by cooperation of the authors from other countries (P=0.044).

Conclusion

The evaluated articles in our study had not adequately reported the items recommended by the STROBE statement. This indicates deficiency in key elements for readers to assess the validity and applicability of a study.

Evaluation of the reporting quality of observational studies in master of public health dissertations in China

Backgrounds

Master of public health (MPH) plays an important role in Chinese medical education, and the dissertations is an important part of MPH education. In MPH dissertations, most are observational studies. Compared with randomized controlled trial (RCT), observational studies are more prone to information bias. So, the reporting of the observational studies should be transparent and standard. But, no research on evaluating the reporting quality of the MPH dissertation has been found.

Methods

A systematic literature search was performed in the Wanfang database from January 1, 2014 to May 31, 2019. The Strengthening the Reporting of Observation Studies in Epidemiology (STROBE) statement was adopted to evaluate the reporting quality of the selected studies. Articles that met the following criteria were selected: (1) observational studies, including cross-sectional studies, case-control studies, and cohort studies; (2) original articles; (3) studies on humans, including both adults and children.

Results

The Median of compliance to individual STROBE items was 74.79%. The mean (standard deviation) of STROBE score was 14.29 (1.84). Five items/sub-items were 100% reported (“reported” and “partly reported” were combined): background, objectives, study design, report numbers of individuals at each stage, and key result. Fifteen items/sub-items were reported by 75% or more. Reporting of methods and results was often omitted: missing data (6.67%), sensitivity analyses (3.63%), flow diagram (15.15%), and absolute risk (0%). Logistic regression analysis indicated that cohort studies (OR = 3.41, 95% CI = 1.27–9.16), funding support (OR = 4.37, 95% CI = 1.27–9.16) and more published papers during postgraduate period (OR = 3.46, 95% CI = 1.40–8.60) were related to high reporting quality.

Conclusion

In short, the reporting quality of observational studies in MPH’s dissertations in China is suboptimal. However, it’s necessary to improve the reporting of method and results sections. We recommend that authors should be stricter to adhere STROBE statement when conducting observational studies.

Reporting quality in systematic reviews of in vitro studies: a systematic review

Background: Systematic reviews (SRs) and/or meta-analyses of in vitro research have an important role in establishing the foundation for clinical studies. In this study, we aimed to evaluate the reporting quality of SRs of in vitro studies using the PRISMA checklist.Method: Four databases were searched including PubMed, Virtual Health Library (VHL), Web of Science (ISI) and Scopus. The search was limited from 2006 to 2016 to include all SRs and/or meta-analyses (MAs) of pure in vitro studies. The evaluation of reporting quality was done using the PRISMA checklist.Results: Out of 7702 search results, 65 SRs were included and evaluated with the PRISMA checklist. Overall, the mean overall quality score of reported items of the PRISMA checklist was 68%. We have noticed an increasing pattern in the numbers of published SRs of in vitro studies over the last 10 years. In contrast, the reporting quality was not significantly improved over the same period (p = .363). There was a positive but not significant correlation between the overall quality score and the journal impact factor of the included studies.Conclusions: The adherence of SRs of in vitro studies to the PRISMA guidelines was poor. Therefore, we believe that using reporting guidelines and journals paying attention to this fact will improve the quality of SRs of in vitro studies.

Scoping review on interventions to improve adherence to reporting guidelines in health research

OBJECTIVES

The goal of this study is to identify, analyse and classify interventions to improve adherence to reporting guidelines in order to obtain a wide picture of how the problem of enhancing the completeness of reporting of biomedical literature has been tackled so far.

DESIGN

Scoping review.

SEARCH STRATEGY

We searched the MEDLINE, EMBASE and Cochrane Library databases and conducted a grey literature search for (1) studies evaluating interventions to improve adherence to reporting guidelines in health research and (2) other types of references describing interventions that have been performed or suggested but never evaluated. The characteristics and effect of the evaluated interventions were analysed. Moreover, we explored the rationale of the interventions identified and determined the existing gaps in research on the evaluation of interventions to improve adherence to reporting guidelines.

RESULTS

109 references containing 31 interventions (11 evaluated) were included. These were grouped into five categories: (1) training on the use of reporting guidelines, (2) improving understanding, (3) encouraging adherence, (4) checking adherence and providing feedback, and (5) involvement of experts. Additionally, we identified lack of evaluated interventions (1) on training on the use of reporting guidelines and improving their understanding, (2) at early stages of research and (3) after the final acceptance of the manuscript.

CONCLUSIONS

This scoping review identified a wide range of strategies to improve adherence to reporting guidelines that can be taken by different stakeholders. Additional research is needed to assess the effectiveness of many of these interventions.

Does the medical literature remain inadequately described despite having reporting guidelines for 21 years? - A systematic review of reviews: an update

PURPOSE

Reporting guidelines (eg, Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials [CONSORT] statement) are intended to improve reporting standards and enhance the transparency and reproducibility of research findings. Despite accessibility of such guidelines, researchers are not required to adhere to them. Our goal was to determine the current status of reporting quality in the medical literature and examine whether adherence of reporting guidelines has improved since the inception of reporting guidelines.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Eight reporting guidelines, such as CONSORT, Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA), STrengthening the Reporting of OBservational studies in Epidemiology (STROBE), Quality of Reporting of Meta-analysis (QUOROM), STAndards for Reporting of Diagnostic accuracy (STARD), Animal Research: Reporting In Vivo Experiments (ARRIVE), Consolidated Health Economic Evaluation Reporting Standards (CHEERS), and Meta-analysis of Observational Studies in Epidemiology (MOOSE) were examined. Our inclusion criteria included reviews published between January 1996 to September 2016 which investigated the adherence to reporting guidelines in the literature that addressed clinical trials, systematic reviews, observational studies, meta-analysis, diagnostic accuracy, economic evaluations, and preclinical animal studies that were in English. All reviews were found on Web of Science, Excerpta Medical Database (EMBASE), MEDLINE, and Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature (CINAHL).

RESULTS

Among the general searching of 26,819 studies by using the designed searching method, 124 studies were included post screening. We found that 87.9% of the included studies reported suboptimal adherence to reporting guidelines. Factors associated with poor adherence included non-pharmacological interventions, year of publication, and trials concluding with significant results. Improved adherence was associated with better study designs such as allocation concealment, random sequence, large sample sizes, adequately powered studies, multiple authorships, and being published in journals endorsing guidelines.

CONCLUSION

We conclude that the level of adherence to reporting guidelines remains suboptimal. Endorsement of reporting guidelines by journals is important and recommended.

Neuropsychological changes in melancholic and atypical depression: A systematic review

There is not a consensus as to whether neuropsychological profiling can distinguish depressive subtypes. We aimed to systematically review and critically analyse the literature on cognitive function in patients with melancholic and atypical depression. We searched in databases PubMed, SCOPUS, Web of Knowledge and PsycInfo for papers comparing the neuropsychological performance of melancholic patients (MEL) to non-melancholic depressive patients (NMEL), including atypical depressives, and healthy controls (HC). All studies were scrutinised to determine the main methodological characteristics and particularly possible sources of bias influencing the results reported, using the STROBE statement checklist. We also provide effect size of the results reported for contrasts between MEL; patients and NMEL patients. Seventeen studies were included; most of them demonstrated higher neuropsychological impairments of MEL patients compared to both NMEL patients and HC on tasks requiring memory, executive function, attention and reaction time. Detailed analysis of the methodologies used in the studies revealed significant variability especially regarding the participants' sociodemographic characteristics, clinical characteristics of patients and differences in neuropsychological assessment. These findings suggest that MEL may have a distinct and impaired cognitive performance compared to NMEL depressive patients on tasks involving verbal and visual memory, executive function, sustained attention and span, as well as psychomotor speed, this last especially when cognitive load is increased. Additional studies with adequate control of potentially confounding variables will help to clarify further differences in the neuropsychological functioning of depressive subtypes.