Consolidated Reporting Guidelines for Prognostic and Diagnostic Machine Learning Models (CREMLS)

The number of papers presenting machine learning (ML) models that are being submitted to and published in the Journal of Medical Internet Research and other JMIR Publications journals has steadily increased. Editors and peer reviewers involved in the review process for such manuscripts often go through multiple review cycles to enhance the quality and completeness of reporting. The use of reporting guidelines or checklists can help ensure consistency in the quality of submitted (and published) scientific manuscripts and, for example, avoid instances of missing information. In this Editorial, the editors of JMIR Publications journals discuss the general JMIR Publications policy regarding authors' application of reporting guidelines and specifically focus on the reporting of ML studies in JMIR Publications journals, using the Consolidated Reporting of Machine Learning Studies (CREMLS) guidelines, with an example of how authors and other journals could use the CREMLS checklist to ensure transparency and rigor in reporting.

Determining the Completeness of Registration and Reporting in Systematic Reviews of Yoga for Health

Introduction: Yoga is a mind-body practice often used to improve health. Systematic reviews (SRs) of randomized controlled trials on yoga for health are foundational to evidence-based yoga interventions and require rigorous and transparent methods, including preparation of a protocol (e.g., PROSPERO) and following SR reporting guidelines (e.g., Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses [PRISMA]). Objective: To evaluate the availability of protocols and the completeness of reporting for SRs on yoga for health. Methods: We used a previously assembled database of SRs focused on the use of yoga for health. The authors independently extracted data on protocol availability, PROSPERO registration, and reporting for each PRISMA 2009 checklist item. Discrepancies were discussed or referred to a third author. We used Stata 10 software to produce descriptive statistics and tests for relationships between registration, reporting, and publication year, country, and journal type. Results: We included 147 reviews published between 2005 and 2019. The most common first author country was the United States or Germany (total 67/147; 46%), and the most common journal type was specialty journals (71/147; 48%). Most reviews (116/147; 79%) made no mention of a protocol or registration, and only 15/147 (10%) reviews were linked to an accessible protocol or registration. Most SRs published in 2010 or later mentioned or cited PRISMA (97/139; 70%), and individual PRISMA items were addressed between 10% and 100% of the time. PRISMA reporting improved; over time, but there was no relationship with country or journal type. Discussion: This study identifies a need for increased SR registration for yoga research. The assessment of PRISMA reporting did not evaluate the comprehensiveness with which each item was reported, and while trends are encouraging, there is likely room for improvement. We recommend registering all yoga SRs and following updated PRISMA and recent yoga-specific guidelines for reporting. This may increase transparency, minimize bias, and produce high-quality data to inform evidence-based yoga practices.

CONSORT-TM: Text classification models for assessing the completeness of randomized controlled trial publications

Objective

To develop text classification models for determining whether the checklist items in the CONSORT reporting guidelines are reported in randomized controlled trial publications.

Materials and Methods

Using a corpus annotated at the sentence level with 37 fine-grained CONSORT items, we trained several sentence classification models (PubMedBERT fine-tuning, BioGPT fine-tuning, and in-context learning with GPT-4) and compared their performance. To address the problem of small training dataset, we used several data augmentation methods (EDA, UMLS-EDA, text generation and rephrasing with GPT-4) and assessed their impact on the fine-tuned PubMedBERT model. We also fine-tuned PubMedBERT models limited to checklist items associated with specific sections (e.g., Methods) to evaluate whether such models could improve performance compared to the single full model. We performed 5-fold cross-validation and report precision, recall, F1 score, and area under curve (AUC).

Results

Fine-tuned PubMedBERT model that takes as input the sentence and the surrounding sentence representations and uses section headers yielded the best overall performance (0.71 micro-F1, 0.64 macro-F1). Data augmentation had limited positive effect, UMLS-EDA yielding slightly better results than data augmentation using GPT-4. BioGPT fine-tuning and GPT-4 in-context learning exhibited suboptimal results. Methods-specific model yielded higher performance for methodology items, other section-specific models did not have significant impact.

Conclusion

Most CONSORT checklist items can be recognized reasonably well with the fine-tuned PubMedBERT model but there is room for improvement. Improved models can underpin the journal editorial workflows and CONSORT adherence checks and can help authors in improving the reporting quality and completeness of their manuscripts.

Best Practices for Data Management and Sharing in Experimental Biomedical Research

Effective data management is crucial for scientific integrity and reproducibility, a cornerstone of scientific progress. Well-organized and well-documented data enable validation and building upon results. Data management encompasses activities including organization, documentation, storage, sharing, and preservation. Robust data management establishes credibility, fostering trust within the scientific community and benefiting researchers' careers. In experimental biomedicine, comprehensive data management is vital due to the typically intricate protocols, extensive metadata, and large datasets. Low-throughput experiments, in particular, require careful management to address variations and errors in protocols and raw data quality. Transparent and accountable research practices rely on accurate documentation of procedures, data collection, and analysis methods. Proper data management ensures long-term preservation and accessibility of valuable datasets. Well-managed data can be revisited, contributing to cumulative knowledge and potential new discoveries. Publicly funded research has an added responsibility for transparency, resource allocation, and avoiding redundancy. Meeting funding agency expectations increasingly requires rigorous methodologies, adherence to standards, comprehensive documentation, and widespread sharing of data, code, and other auxiliary resources. This review provides critical insights into raw and processed data, metadata, high-throughput versus low-throughput datasets, a common language for documentation, experimental and reporting guidelines, efficient data management systems, sharing practices, and relevant repositories. We systematically present available resources and optimal practices for wide use by experimental biomedical researchers.

Barriers and Enablers to Using Intervention Reporting Guidelines in Sports and Exercise Medicine Trials: A Mixed-Methods Study

OBJECTIVE: To identify barriers and facilitators for using intervention reporting guidelines (CERT and TIDieR) from authors of randomized controlled trials in sports and exercise medicine journals. DESIGN: Mixed-methods cross-sectional online survey. METHODS: We recruited authors of randomized controlled trials published from June 2, 2018, to June 2, 2022, in the 10 leading sports and exercise medicine journals. We invited authors of eligible trials to complete an online survey that included multiple-choice and Likert-scale questions, as well as open-ended free-text questions on the barriers and facilitators to using intervention reporting guidelines. We used descriptive analysis to summarize the quantitative data and a hybrid deductive-inductive thematic analysis to identify barriers and facilitators from the qualitative data. We conducted a subgroup analysis to explore differences in barriers and facilitators between early-mid career researchers and senior researchers. RESULTS: Eighty-four participants from 21 countries completed the survey (44 early-mid-career researchers, 40 senior researchers). We identified 8 themes relating to using intervention reporting guidelines. Themes classified as barriers related to publication constraints (word count limits), low awareness of intervention reporting guidelines, unclear benefits of the guidelines, and the increased burden imposed upon the researcher. Themes classified as facilitators related to journal requirements for guidelines use, the desire to accurately describe interventions, recommendations from other researchers, and reporting guideline use indicating "quality" of work. CONCLUSION: Barriers to using intervention reporting guidelines are largely modifiable and could be addressed by journals mandating their use, and educational initiatives. J Orthop Sports Phys Ther 2024;54(2):1-11. Epub 16 November 2023. doi:10.2519/jospt.2023.12110.

Biofield Therapies: Guidelines for Reporting Clinical Trials

Highlights Guidelines have been created to improve the reporting of clinical trials of biofield therapies, e.g. External Qigong, Healing Touch, Reiki, and Therapeutic Touch. Appropriate use of these guidelines is likely to strengthen the evidence base for biofield therapies as well as increase their usage as stand-alone practices and as complementary therapies within mainstream healthcare.

A Systematic Review of Qualitative Research in Hand Surgery

No formal review of qualitative research in hand surgery has been previously performed. The primary objective of this study was to evaluate the reporting quality of hand surgery qualitative research with the Standards for Reporting Qualitative Research (SRQR), a 21-item checklist. The secondary objectives were to describe qualitative research in hand surgery by domain, determine differences in reporting quality based on use of a reporting guideline, publication of SRQR and journal of publication, and to identify important outcomes in hand surgery conditions. Fifty-five studies were included from MEDLINE, Embase, PsycINFO, and Emcare. The median SRQR score was 16. The lowest reported sections were context, data collection methods, and data analysis. Qualitative research was found in multiple domains of hand surgery. There was a significant difference between papers that used a reporting guideline and studies published after the publication of the SRQR. Clinical/medical/basic science journals had the highest median SRQR score. Outcomes identified were pain for carpal tunnel syndrome and pain, function, unintentional harm, recurrence, and recovery time for Dupuytren disease. To further improve reporting quality in hand surgery qualitative research, we recommend that investigators ensure they provide rationale for their methodology and become familiar with the SRQR guidelines.

Biofield Therapies: Guidelines for Reporting Clinical Trials

A set of guidelines has been developed to help improve reporting of clinical trials of biofield therapies. The need for enhanced transparency when reporting trials of this family of integrative health practices, eg, External Qigong, Healing Touch, Reiki and Therapeutic Touch, has been advocated in systematic reviews of these studies. The guidelines, called Biofield Therapies: Reporting Evidence Guidelines (BiFi REGs), supplement CONsolidated Standards of Reporting Trials (CONSORT) 2010 by including details of the intervention protocols relevant to biofield therapy trials. BiFi REGs evolved through a draft document created by a core group, two rounds of a Delphi process with an international group of subject matter experts and two panels, meeting via Zoom, which included editors of complementary and integrative medicine journals. BiFi REGs comprises a 15-item Intervention checklist. Modifications of two other CONSORT topic areas are also proposed to enhance their relevance to trials of biofield therapies. Included for each item are an explanation, and exemplars of reporting from peer-reviewed published reports of biofield therapy trials. When used in conjunction with all other items from CONSORT 2010, we anticipate that BiFi REGs will expedite the peer review process for biofield therapy trials, facilitate attempts at trial replication and help to inform decision-making in the clinical practice of biofield therapies.

Pilot test of Consensus Reporting Items for Studies in Primary care (CRISP)

The Consensus Reporting Items for Studies in Primary care (CRISP) provides a new research reporting guideline to meet the needs of the producers and users of primary care (PC) research. Developed through an iterative program of research, including investigators, practicing clinicians, patients, community representatives, and educators, the CRISP Checklist guides PC researchers across the spectrum of research methods, study designs, and topics. This pilot test included a variety of team members using the CRISP Checklist for writing, revising, and reviewing PC research reports. All or most of the 15 participants reported that the checklist was easy to use, improved research reports, and should be recommended by PC research journals. The checklist is adaptable to different study types; not all items apply to all reports. The CRISP Checklist can help meet the needs of PC research when used in parallel with existing guidelines that focus on specific methods and limited topics.

Preferred Reporting Of Case Series in Surgery (PROCESS) 2023 guidelines

INTRODUCTION

The Preferred Reporting Of CasE Series in Surgery (PROCESS) guidelines were developed in 2016 in order to improve the reporting quality of surgical case series. Since its inception, it has been updated twice, in 2018 and 2020, and has been cited over 1000 times. PROCESS guidelines have enjoyed great acceptance within the surgical research community. Our aim is to update the PROCESS guidelines in order to maintain its applicability in the field of surgical research.

METHODS

A PROCESS 2023 steering group was created. By working in collaboration, members of this group came up with proposals to update the PROCESS 2020 guidelines. These proposals were presented to an expert panel of researchers, who in turn scrutinised these proposals and decided whether they should become part of PROCESS 2023 guidelines or not, through a Delphi consensus exercise.

RESULTS

A total of 38 people participated in the development of PROCESS 2023 guidelines. The majority of items received a score between 7 and 9 from greater than 70% of the participants, indicating consensus with the proposed changes to those items. However, two items (3c and 6a) received a score between 7 and 9 from less than 70% of the participants, indicating a lack of consensus with the proposed changes to those items. Those items will remain unchanged.

DISCUSSION

The updated PROCESS 2023 guidelines are presented with an aim to continue improving the reporting quality of case series in surgery.

Epidemiology and Reporting Characteristics of Systematic Reviews in Orthopedic Journals: A Meta-Epidemiological Study

Systematic reviews (SRs) with complete reporting or rigorous methods can lead to less biased recommendations and decisions. A comprehensive analysis of the epidemiological and reporting characteristics of SRs in orthopedics is lacking. We evaluated 360 SRs, including 165 and 195 published in orthopedic journals in 2012 and 2022. According to the established reporting guidelines, we examined these SRs for key epidemiological characteristics, including focus areas, type of meta-analysis (MA), and reporting characteristics. Most SRs (71%) were therapy-related, with a significant proportion originating from authors in the USA, UK, and China. Pairwise MA was performed on half of the SRs. The proportion of protocol registrations improved by 2022 but remained low (33%). Despite a formal declaration of adherence to the reporting guidelines (68%), they were often not used and reported enough. Only 10% of the studies used full search strategies, including trial registries. Publication bias assessments, subgroup analyses, and sensitivity analyses were not even planned. The risk of bias assessment improved in 2022; however, the certainty of the evidence remained largely unassessed (8%). The use and reporting of standard methods in orthopedic SRs have remained suboptimal. Thus, authors, peer reviewers, journal editors, and readers should criticize the results more.

Quality of online media reports of suicide and attempted suicide in India

Background

News media reporting of suicide may influence the masses toward or against suicidal behavior. So, responsible reporting by news media is important to protect vulnerable people from the deleterious effects of media reporting. World Health Organization has issued guidelines for media reporting of suicide in this regard. We planned this research to evaluate the quality of online news media reports of suicide and attempted suicides in India.

Material and Methods

We assessed a total of 210 news reports about suicide and attempted suicides (70 English, 70 Malayalam, and 70 Hindi) to evaluate the reporting of harmful and protective characteristics in news according to the World Health Organization guidelines for reporting suicide in media.

Results

We found all three language media reported almost all potentially harmful characteristics with gender (100%), location/site of suicide in the headline (97.61%), precipitating life events (95.24%), mentioning term 'Suicide' in the headline (98.10%), monocausal explanation for suicidality (90.95%), suicide method in the headline (90.95%), an accompanying photo (92.38%), and suicide method (93.81%) being reported with highest frequency. Potentially protective characteristics were not included in most news reports with poor focus on awareness information. Vernacular language media were poor as compared to English news media about the quality of reporting suicide.

Conclusion

We found poor adherence to reporting guidelines by online news media for reporting of suicide with poor coverage of educative and awareness information for the general public. It underlines the need for improving awareness among media professionals about responsible reporting of suicide.

Publications on the diagnostic accuracy of dermatopathology tests: A cross-sectional quality analysis

BACKGROUND

Ancillary diagnostic tests are frequent in dermatopathology practice. Publications on their accuracy influence their utilization. The transparency and completeness of these publications are unknown.

METHODS

We performed a cross-sectional study on diagnostic accuracy studies in dermatopathology published between 2020 and 2022 for compliance with Standards for Reporting of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies (STARD) and the Quality Assessment of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies 2 (QUADAS-2).

RESULTS

14.67 ± 3.02 STARD items were reported in 62 publications (range, 9.5-23.5 out of the recommended total of 30). More items were reported in high-impact factor journals (16.01 vs. 13.32, p = 0.0002) and journals that endorsed STARD in their author instructions (17.22 vs. 14.11, p = 0.0039). Less than 10% of publications reported quantifiable hypotheses, sample size calculations, flow diagrams, or study registrations. The risk of bias by our analysis of QUADAS-2 criteria was high or uncertain for index test interpretation (36/62, 58%) and patient selection (44/62, 71%).

CONCLUSIONS

Publications on dermatopathology tests are exploratory studies without prespecified hypotheses or study designs. They do not meet the criteria for transparent reporting. We suggest that medical journal leadership should consider updating their instructions with more explicit guidance on recommended manuscript elements.

A Systematic Review to Inform the Development of a Reporting Guideline for Concept Mapping Research

Concept mapping is a phased, mixed-method approach that is increasingly used in health research to develop an understanding of complex phenomena. The six phases of concept mapping are preparation, idea generation, structuring (clustering and prioritization), data analysis, interpretation, and utilization of the map. The reporting of concept mapping research requires the development of a specific reporting guideline. We conducted a systematic review to identify candidate reporting items for inclusion in a reporting guideline. Three databases (MEDLINE, CINAHL, and PsycInfo) were searched to identify studies that used concept mapping methodology. We included 75 concept mapping studies published since 2019 from which we extracted information about the quality of reporting. A third of the studies focused on public health. We identified 71 candidate items that relate to the quality of reporting concept mapping research. The rationale for the study, the focus prompt, procedures for brainstorming, and structuring statements were consistently reported across the included studies. The process for developing the focus prompt, the rationale for the size of the stakeholder groups, and the process for determining the final concept map were generally not reported. The findings from the review will be used to inform the development of our reporting guideline for concept mapping research.

The engagement problem: A review of engagement with digital mental health interventions and recommendations for a path forward

Purpose of the review

Digital mental health interventions (DMHIs) are an effective and accessible means of addressing the unprecedented levels of mental illness worldwide. Currently, however, patient engagement with DMHIs in real-world settings is often insufficient to see clinical benefit. In order to realize the potential of DMHIs, there is a need to better understand what drives patient engagement.

Recent findings

We discuss takeaways from the existing literature related to patient engagement with DMHIs and highlight gaps to be addressed through further research. Findings suggest that engagement is influenced by patient-, intervention- and systems-level factors. At the patient-level, variables such as sex, education, personality traits, race, ethnicity, age and symptom severity appear to be associated with engagement. At the intervention-level, integrating human support, gamification, financial incentives and persuasive technology features may improve engagement. Finally, although systems-level factors have not been widely explored, the existing evidence suggests that achieving engagement will require addressing organizational and social barriers and drawing on the field of implementation science.

Summary

Future research clarifying the patient-, intervention- and systems-level factors that drive engagement will be essential. Additionally, to facilitate improved understanding of DMHI engagement, we propose the following: (a) widespread adoption of a minimum necessary 5-element engagement reporting framework; (b) broader application of alternative clinical trial designs; and (c) directed efforts to build upon an initial parsimonious conceptual model of DMHI engagement.

Critical analysis of the reporting quality of animal studies within Endodontics using the Preferred Reporting Items for Animal Studies in Endodontics (PRIASE) 2021 quality standard checklist

AIM

To critically evaluate the reporting quality of a random sample of animal studies within the field of endodontics against the Preferred Reporting Items for Animal Studies in Endodontics (PRIASE) 2021 checklist and to investigate the association between the quality of reporting and several characteristics of the selected studies.

METHODOLOGY

Fifty animal studies related to endodontics were randomly selected from the PubMed database with publication dates from January 2017 to December 2021. For each study, a score of '1' was given when the item of the PRIASE 2021 checklist was fully reported, whereas a score of '0' was given when an item was not reported; when the item was inadequately or partially reported, a score of '0.5' was given. Based on the overall scores allocated to each manuscript, they were allocated into three categories of reporting quality: low, moderate and high. Associations between study characteristics and reporting quality scores were also analysed. Descriptive statistics and Fisher's exact tests were used to describe the data and determine associations. The probability value of .05 was selected as the level of statistical significance.

RESULTS

Based on the overall scores, four (8%) and 46 (92%) of the animal studies evaluated were categorized as 'High' and 'Moderate' reporting quality, respectively. A number of items were adequately reported in all studies related to background (Item 4a), relevance of methods/results (7a) and interpretation of images (11e), whereas only one item related to changes in protocol (6d) was not reported in any. No associations were confirmed between reporting quality scores and number of authors, origin of the corresponding author, journal of publication (endodontic specialty vs. non- specialty), impact factor or year of publication.

CONCLUSIONS

Animal studies published in the specialty of endodontics were mostly of 'moderate' quality in terms of the quality of reporting. Adherence to the PRIASE 2021 guidelines will enhance the reporting of animal studies in the expectation that all future publications will be high quality.

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.

Application of Causal Inference Methods to Pooled Longitudinal Non- Randomized Studies: A Methodological Systematic Review

Observational data provide invaluable real-world information in medicine, but certain methodological considerations are required to derive causal estimates. In this systematic review, we evaluated the methodology and reporting quality of individual-level patient data meta-analyses (IPD-MAs) published in 2009, 2014, and 2019 that sought to estimate a causal relationship in medicine. We screened over 16,000 titles and abstracts, reviewed 45 full-text articles out of the 167 deemed potentially eligible, and included 29 into the analysis. Unfortunately, we found that causal methodologies were rarely implemented, and reporting was generally poor across studies. Specifically, only three of the 29 articles used quasi-experimental methods, and no study used G-methods to adjust for time-varying confounding. To address these issues, we propose stronger collaborations between physicians and methodologists to ensure that causal methodologies are properly implemented in IPD-MAs. In addition, we put forward a suggested checklist of reporting guidelines for IPD-MAs that utilize causal methods. This checklist could improve reporting thereby potentially enhancing the quality and trustworthiness of IPD-MAs, which can be considered one of the most valuable sources of evidence for health policy.

Guidelines for Authors and Reviewers of

Credible clinical research is a precondition of evidence-based surgery. If clinical research is not conducted and reported properly, such research can be unreliable, unclear, and misleading. Our journal, Plastic Surgery, aims to improve its quality and thus enhance interest, submissions, and readership. To do so, we must ensure that the articles published in our journal align with these goals. This article guides future clinical research contributors, how to design, conduct and report valuable and reliable research. Readers are informed how to choose a title and keywords that properly reflect the content of the article. The proper organization of a manuscript, and the information that goes into each section is described. Valuable tools like the EQUATOR Network Guidelines, the FINER Criteria and the PICOT Format are described for the reader. These resources help formulate a proper research question and ensure transparency in reporting. Commonly used study designs, and the research questions they answer are presented. This ensures that those engaged in research are choosing the right study design for their research. We outline the statistical information that should be presented in the Methods section and differentiate between the content that should be found in the Results and Discussion sections. As Plastic Surgery strives to publish high-quality, reliable research, it is by the standards presented in this article that we will judge all manuscripts submitted for publication.

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.

Do Meta-Analyses of Intervention/Prevention Programs in the Field of Criminology Meet the Tests of Transparency and Reproducibility?

While assessments of transparent reporting practices in meta-analyses are not uncommon in the field of health sciences interventions, they are limited in the social sciences and to our knowledge are non-existent in criminology. Modified PRISMA 2020 checklists were used to assess transparency and reproducibility of reporting for a sample of 33 meta-analyses of intervention/prevention evaluations published in scholarly journals between 2016 and 2021. Results indicate that the average rate of transparent reporting practices was 63%; adherence varied considerably across studies and subscales, with low rates of adherence for some core checklist items. Overwhelmingly, studies were not reproducible in their entirety; article word count was significantly correlated with reproducibility (r = 0.4028, p < .03). These findings suggest that substantial changes to reporting practices are necessary to meet traditional meta-analytic claims of transparency and reproducibility. Study limitations include sample size, coding instruments, and coding subjectivity.

Partially clustered designs for clinical trials: Unifying existing designs using consistent terminology

INTRODUCTION

Clinical trial designs based on the assumption of independent observations are well established. Clustered clinical trial designs, where all observational units belong to a cluster and outcomes within clusters are expected to be correlated, have also received considerable attention. However, many clinical trials involve partially clustered data, where only some observational units belong to a cluster. Examples of such trials occur in neonatology, where participants include infants from both singleton and multiple births, and ophthalmology, where one or two eyes per participant may need treatment. Partial clustering can also arise in trials of group-based treatments (e.g. group education or counselling sessions) or treatments administered individually by a discrete number of health care professionals (e.g. surgeons or physical therapists), when this is compared to an unclustered control arm. Trials involving partially clustered data have received limited attention in the literature and the current lack of standardised terminology may be hampering the development and dissemination of methods for designing and analysing these trials.

METHODS AND EXAMPLES

In this article, we present an overarching definition of partially clustered trials, bringing together several existing trial designs including those for group-based treatments, clustering due to facilitator effects and the re-randomisation design. We define and describe four types of partially clustered trial designs, characterised by whether the clustering occurs pre-randomisation or post-randomisation and, in the case of pre-randomisation clustering, by the method of randomisation that is used for the clustered observations (individual randomisation, cluster randomisation or balanced randomisation within clusters). Real life examples are provided to highlight the occurrence of partially clustered trials across a variety of fields. To assess how partially clustered trials are currently reported, we review published reports of partially clustered trials.

DISCUSSION

Our findings demonstrate that the description of these trials is often incomplete and the terminology used to describe the trial designs is inconsistent, restricting the ability to identify these trials in the literature. By adopting the definitions and terminology presented in this article, the reporting of partially clustered trials can be substantially improved, and we present several recommendations for reporting these trial designs in practice. Greater awareness of partially clustered trials will facilitate more methodological research into their design and analysis, ultimately improving the quality of these trials.

Transparency and completeness of reporting of depression screening tool accuracy studies: A meta-research review of adherence to the Standards for Reporting of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies statement

OBJECTIVES

Accurate and complete study reporting allows evidence users to critically appraise studies, evaluate possible bias, and assess generalizability and applicability. We evaluated the extent to which recent studies on depression screening accuracy were reported consistent with Standards for Reporting of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies (STARD) statement requirements.

METHODS

MEDLINE was searched from January 1, 2018 through May 21, 2021 for depression screening accuracy studies.

RESULTS

106 studies were included. Of 34 STARD items or sub-items, the number of adequately reported items per study ranged from 7 to 18 (mean = 11.5, standard deviation [SD] = 2.5; median = 11.5), and the number inadequately reported ranged from 3 to 17 (mean = 10.1, SD = 2.5; median = 10.0). There were eight items adequately reported, seven partially reported, 11 inadequately reported, and four not applicable in ≥50% of studies; the remaining four items had mixed reporting. Items inadequately reported in ≥70% of studies related to the rationale for index test cut-offs examined, missing data management, analyses of variability in accuracy results, sample size determination, participant flow, study registration, and study protocol.

CONCLUSION

Recently published depression screening accuracy studies are not optimally reported. Journals should endorse and implement STARD adherence.

ACURATE: A guide for reporting sham controls in trials using acupuncture

OBJECTIVE

To promote better reporting quality regarding sham acupuncture in clinical trials for a precise appraisal of the adequacy of the sham acupuncture procedure.

METHODS

A three-stage online Delphi survey was conducted to a group of experts. Items with higher than 80% consensus from the initial checklist were selected as the final candidates. Further discussion among the working group was convened to preclude potential redundancy among the items.

RESULTS

A total of 23 experts out of 35 (66%) responded to the Delphi process. The final checklist consists of 23 items in six categories: type of sham acupuncture, details of sham acupuncture manipulation, location of sham acupuncture, treatment regimen, practitioner, and protocol and settings.

CONCLUSION

This paper presents the Acupuncture Controls gUideline for Reporting humAn Trials and Experiments (ACURATE) checklist, an extension of The Consolidated Standards for Reporting of Trials (CONSORT) and to be used along with STandards for Reporting Interventions in Clinical Trials of Acupuncture (STRICTA) when sham acupuncture needles are used in the study. This checklist focuses on a clear depiction of sham needling procedures to enhance replicability and enable a precise appraisal. We encourage researchers to use ACURATE in trials and reviews involving sham acupuncture to assist reporting sham acupuncture procedures and the related components.

Reporting guidelines enhance the quality and impact of research in Dental Traumatology

Reporting guidelines assist basic scientists, translational healthcare researchers and clinicians to publish manuscripts of the highest standard by improving the accuracy, transparency and completeness of the publications they submit to journals. This paper provides an overview of reporting guidelines relevant for the specialty of dental traumatology and discusses their application, significance and potential impact. The Preferred Reporting Items for study Designs in Endodontology (PRIDE) suite of reporting guidelines includes a range of study designs that can be used within the broad field of Endodontics but they are also applicable to dental traumatology and other dental disciplines (Preferred Reporting Items for Case reports in Endodontics [PRICE] 2020, Preferred Reporting Items for RAndomized Trials in Endodontics [PRIRATE] 2020; Preferred Reporting Items for Animal Studies in Endodontology [PRIASE] 2021; Preferred Reporting Items for Laboratory studies in Endodontology [PRILE] 2021 and Preferred Reporting items for OBservational studies in Endodontics [PROBE] 2023). The PRIDE guidelines were developed by an extensive network of globally renowned academics, researchers and expert clinicians working within dentistry using an accepted and validated consensus methodology. The aim of the PRIDE guidelines is to improve the overall quality of manuscripts describing case reports, randomized trials, animal research, laboratory studies and observational studies. Although attention to reporting guidelines adds a degree of complexity when writing reports, such guidelines provide a template for authors to develop standardized manuscripts of the highest quality, which will allow colleagues, readers and the wider public to have confidence that their findings are valid and robust. They also provide evidence to editors that manuscripts submitted to journals comply with the highest global standards of reporting within their respective discipline. Endorsement of the PRIDE guidelines by editors will lead to improvements in the reporting quality of manuscripts submitted to their journals.

Reporting and conducting patient journey mapping research in healthcare: A scoping review

AIM

To identify how patient journey mapping is being undertaken and reported.

DESIGN

A scoping review of the literature was undertaken using JBI guidance.

DATA SOURCES

Databases were searched in July 2021 (16th-21st), including Ovid's Medline, Embase, Emcare and PsycINFO; Scopus; Web of Science Core Collection, the Directory of Open Access Journals; Informit and; ProQuest Dissertations and Theses Global.

REVIEW METHODS

Eligible articles included peer-reviewed literature documenting journey mapping methodologies and studies conducted in healthcare services. Reviewers used Covidence to screen titles and abstracts of located sources, and to screen full-text articles. A table was used to extract data and synthesize results.

RESULTS

Eighty-one articles were included. An acceleration of patient journey mapping research was observed, with 76.5% (n = 62) of articles published since 2015. Diverse mapping approaches were identified. Reporting of studies was inconsistent and largely non-adherent with relevant, established reporting guidelines.

CONCLUSION

Patient journey mapping is a relatively novel approach for understanding patient experiences and is increasingly being adopted. There is variation in process details reported. Considerations for improving reporting standards are provided.

IMPACT

Patient journey mapping is a rapidly growing approach for better understanding how people enter, experience and exit health services. This type of methodology has significant potential to inform new, patient centred models of care and facilitate clinicians, patients and health professionals to better understand gaps and strategies in health services. The synthesised results of this review alert researchers to options available for journey mapping research and provide preliminary guidance for elevating reporting quality.

A Meta-Epidemiological Study of Positive Results in Clinical Nutrition Research: The Good, the Bad and the Ugly of Statistically Significant Findings

Positive (statistically significant) findings are easily produced in nutrition research when specific aspects of the research design and analysis are not accounted for. To address this issue, recently, a pledge was made to reform nutrition research and improve scientific trust on the science, encompass research transparency and achieve reproducibility. The aim of the present meta-epidemiological study was to evaluate the statistical significance status of research items published in three academic journals, all with a focus on clinical nutrition science and assessing certain methodological/transparency issues. All research items were published between the years 2015 and 2019. Study design, primary and secondary findings, sample size and age group, funding sources, positivist findings, the existence of a published research protocol and the adjustment of nutrients/dietary indexes to the energy intake (EI) of participants, were extracted for each study. Out of 2127 studies in total, those with positive findings consisted of the majority, in all three journals. Most studies had a published research protocol, however, this was mainly due to the randomized controlled trials and not to the evidence-synthesis studies. No differences were found in the distribution of positive findings according to the existence/inexistence of a published research protocol. In the pooled sample of studies, positive findings differed according to study design and more significant findings were reported by researchers failing to report any funding source. The majority of items published in the three journals (65.9%) failed to account for the EI of participants. The present results indicate that there is still room for the improvement of nutrition research in terms of design, analyses and reporting.

Avoiding Pitfalls in Thermal Dose Effect Relationship Studies: A Review and Guide Forward

The challenge to explain the diffuse and unconclusive message reported by hyperthermia studies investigating the thermal dose parameter is still to be unravelled. In the present review, we investigated a wide range of technical and clinical parameters characterising hyperthermia treatment to better understand and improve the probability of detecting a thermal dose effect relationship in clinical studies. We performed a systematic literature review to obtain hyperthermia clinical studies investigating the associations of temperature and thermal dose parameters with treatment outcome or acute toxicity. Different hyperthermia characteristics were retrieved, and their influence on temperature and thermal dose parameters was assessed. In the literature, we found forty-eight articles investigating thermal dose effect relationships. These comprised a total of 4107 patients with different tumour pathologies. The association between thermal dose and treatment outcome was the investigated endpoint in 90% of the articles, while the correlation between thermal dose and toxicity was investigated in 50% of the articles. Significant associations between temperature-related parameters and treatment outcome were reported in 63% of the studies, while those between temperature-related parameters and toxicity were reported in 15% of the studies. One clear difficulty for advancement is that studies often omitted fundamental information regarding the clinical treatment, and among the different characteristics investigated, thermometry details were seldom and divergently reported. To overcome this, we propose a clear definition of the terms and characteristics that should be reported in clinical hyperthermia treatments. A consistent report of data will allow their use to further continue the quest for thermal dose effect relationships.

N-of-1 Trials, Their Reporting Guidelines, and the Advancement of Open Science Principles

N-of-1 trials are multiple crossover trials done over time within a single person; they can also be done with a series of individuals. Their focus on the individual as the unit of analysis maintains statistical power while accommodating greater differences between patients than most standard clinical trials. This makes them particularly useful in rare diseases, while also being applicable across many health conditions and populations. Best practices recommend the use of reporting guidelines to publish research in a standardized and transparent fashion. N-of-1 trials have the SPIRIT extension for N-of-1 protocols (SPENT) and the CONSORT extension for N-of-1 trials (CENT). Open science is a recent movement focused on making scientific knowledge fully available to anyone, increasing collaboration, and sharing of scientific efforts. Open science goals increase research transparency, rigor, and reproducibility, and reduce research waste. Many organizations and articles focus on specific aspects of open science, for example, open access publishing. Throughout the trajectory of research (idea, development, running a trial, analysis, publication, dissemination, knowledge translation/reflection), many open science ideals are addressed by the individual-focused nature of N-of-1 trials, including issues such as patient perspectives in research development, personalization, and publications, enhanced equity from the broader inclusion criteria possible, and easier remote trials options. However, N-of-1 trials also help us understand areas of caution, such as monitoring of post hoc analyses and the nuances of confidentiality for rare diseases in open data sharing. The N-of-1 reporting guidelines encourage rigor and transparency of N-of-1 considerations for key aspects of the research trajectory.

Transparent and complete reporting of confounding in observational research

Improved understanding of causal risk factors for child and adolescent mental health problems are dependent on observational research. Although confounding is a major limitation of observational research, this problem is widely ignored in the reporting and dissemination of findings from observational studies in psychiatric journals. There is clearly a need for improved reporting of confounding and more careful interpretation of observational research in psychiatry.

PRISMA 2020 and PRISMA-S: common questions on tracking records and the flow diagram

The PRISMA 2020 and PRISMA-S guidelines help systematic review teams report their reviews clearly, transparently, and with sufficient detail to enable reproducibility. PRISMA 2020, an updated version of the PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analyses) statement, is complemented by PRISMA-S, an extension to PRISMA focusing on reporting the search components of systematic reviews. Several significant changes were implemented in PRISMA 2020 and PRISMA-S when compared with the original version of PRISMA in 2009, including the recommendation to report search strategies for all databases, registries, and websites that were searched. PRISMA-S also recommends reporting the number of records identified from each information source. One of the most challenging aspects of the new guidance from both documents has been changes to the flow diagram. In this article, we review some of the common questions about using the PRISMA 2020 flow diagram and tracking records through the systematic review process.

Guidelines for reporting on animal fecal transplantation (GRAFT) studies: recommendations from a systematic review of murine transplantation protocols

Fecal microbiota transplant (FMT) is a powerful tool used to connect changes in gut microbial composition with a variety of disease states and pathologies. While FMT enables potential causal relationships to be identified, the experimental details reported in preclinical FMT protocols are highly inconsistent and/or incomplete. This limitation reflects a current lack of authoritative guidance on reporting standards that would facilitate replication efforts and ultimately reproducible science. We therefore systematically reviewed all FMT protocols used in mouse models with the goal of formulating recommendations on the reporting of preclinical FMT protocols. Search strategies were applied across three databases (PubMed, EMBASE, and Ovid Medline) until June 30, 2020. Data related to donor attributes, stool collection, processing/storage, recipient preparation, administration, and quality control were extracted. A total of 1753 papers were identified, with 241 identified for data extraction and analysis. Of the papers included, 92.5% reported a positive outcome with FMT intervention. However, the vast majority of studies failed to address core methodological aspects including the use of anaerobic conditions (91.7% of papers lacked information), storage (49.4%), homogenization (33.6%), concentration (31.5%), volume (19.9%) and administration route (5.3%). To address these reporting limitations, we developed theGuidelines for Reporting Animal Fecal Transplant (GRAFT) that guide reporting standards for preclinical FMT. The GRAFT recommendations will enable robust reporting of preclinical FMT design, and facilitate high-quality peer review, improving the rigor and translation of knowledge gained through preclinical FMT studies.

Addressing epistemic injustice in HIV research: a call for reporting guidelines on meaningful community engagement

INTRODUCTION

Despite the widely recognized ethical and practical benefits of community engagement in HIV research, epistemic injustice persists within the field. Namely, the knowledge held by communities disproportionately affected by HIV is systematically afforded less credibility than that of more privileged academic researchers. In order to illustrate what this looks like in practice, we synthesized the extent of reporting on community engagement within recent high-impact HIV intervention research papers. However, we also posit that the HIV research sector has the potential to devise and showcase world-leading examples of equitable research-community partnerships and suggest actionable key steps to achieving this goal.

DISCUSSION

In the absence of reporting requirements within the publishing process, it is difficult to infer whether and how the community have been consulted in the design, implementation, analysis and/or interpretation of findings. As an illustrative exercise, we offer a rapid synthesis of the extent of reporting on community engagement in HIV research from 2017 to 2019, which highlighted sporadic and very low rates of reporting of community engagement in recent high-impact HIV intervention studies. Of note is that none of the included studies reported on community engagement through all stages of the research process. There were also discrepancies in how community involvement was reported. We provide three actionable recommendations to enhance reporting on community engagement in HIV research: (1) community-led organizations, researchers and scientific journals should band together to develop, publish and require adherence to standardized guidelines for reporting on community involvement in HIV research; (2) research funders should (continue to) require details about how relevant communities have been engaged prior to the submission of funding requests; and (3) researchers should take proactive measures to describe their engagement with community organizations in a clear and transparent manner.

CONCLUSIONS

There is a clear and urgent need for guidelines that facilitate transparent and consistent reporting on community engagement in HIV intervention research. Without standardized reporting requirements and accountability mechanisms within the research sector, the extent of meaningful community engagement cannot be established and may remain a catchphrase rather than reality.

Randomization, blinding, data handling and sample size estimation in papers published in Veterinary Anaesthesia and Analgesia in 2009 and 2019

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate reporting of items indicative of bias and weak study design.

STUDY DESIGN

Literature survey.

POPULATION

Papers published in Veterinary Anaesthesia and Analgesia.

METHODS

Reporting of randomization, blinding, sample size estimation and data exclusion were compared for papers published separated by a 10 year interval. A reporting rate of more than 95% was considered ideal. The availability of data supporting results in a publicly accessible repository was also assessed. Selected papers were randomized and identifiers removed for review, with data from 59 (57 in 2009, two in 2008) and 56 (52 in 2019, four in 2018) papers analyzed. Items were categorized for completeness of reporting using a previously published operationalized checklist. Two reviewers reviewed all papers independently.

RESULTS

Full reporting of randomization increased over time from 13.6% to 85.7% [95% confidence interval (CI), 57.8-86.6%; p < 0.0001], as did sample size estimation (from 0% to 20%; 95% CI, 7.6-32.4%; p = 0.002). Reporting of blinding (49.2% and 50.0%; 95% CI, -18.3% to 20.0%; p = 1.0) and exclusions of samples/animals (39.0% and 50.0%; 95% CI, -8.8% to 30.8%; p = 0.3) did not change significantly. Data availability was low (2008/2009, zero papers; 2018/2019, two papers). None of the items studied exceeded the predetermined ideal reporting rate.

CONCLUSIONS AND CLINICAL RELEVANCE

These results indicate that reporting quality remains low, with a risk of bias.

Conceptual Ambiguity Surrounding Gamification and Serious Games in Health Care: Literature Review and Development of Game-Based Intervention Reporting Guidelines (GAMING)

BACKGROUND

In health care, the use of game-based interventions to increase motivation, engagement, and overall sustainability of health behaviors is steadily becoming more common. The most prevalent types of game-based interventions in health care research are gamification and serious games. Various researchers have discussed substantial conceptual differences between these 2 concepts, supported by empirical studies showing differences in the effects on specific health behaviors. However, researchers also frequently report cases in which terms related to these 2 concepts are used ambiguously or even interchangeably. It remains unclear to what extent existing health care research explicitly distinguishes between gamification and serious games and whether it draws on existing conceptual considerations to do so.

OBJECTIVE

This study aims to address this lack of knowledge by capturing the current state of conceptualizations of gamification and serious games in health care research. Furthermore, we aim to provide tools for researchers to disambiguate the reporting of game-based interventions.

METHODS

We used a 2-step research approach. First, we conducted a systematic literature review of 206 studies, published in the Journal of Medical Internet Research and its sister journals, containing terms related to gamification, serious games, or both. We analyzed their conceptualizations of gamification and serious games, as well as the distinctions between the two concepts. Second, based on the literature review findings, we developed a set of guidelines for researchers reporting on game-based interventions and evaluated them with a group of 9 experts from the field.

RESULTS

Our results show that less than half of the concept mentions are accompanied by an explicit definition. To distinguish between the 2 concepts, we identified four common approaches: implicit distinction, synonymous use of terms, serious games as a type of gamified system, and distinction based on the full game dimension. Our Game-Based Intervention Reporting Guidelines (GAMING) consist of 25 items grouped into four topics: conceptual focus, contribution, mindfulness about related concepts, and individual concept definitions.

CONCLUSIONS

Conceptualizations of gamification and serious games in health care literature are strongly heterogeneous, leading to conceptual ambiguity. Following the GAMING can support authors in rigorous reporting on study results of game-based interventions.

Evidence on reporting guidelines for surgical technique in clinical disciplines: a scoping review protocol

Background

The reporting of surgical techniques is of mixed quality, with most at a very minimal level. Reporting guidelines that could be applied to guide surgical technique reporting vary in methodology for development, discipline coverage, dimension coverage and detail requested. However, a scoping review that could indicate the gaps and efforts needed in surgical technique reporting guidelines is lacking and warranted. This study aims to design a methodological rigour protocol to guide the development of a scoping review of surgical technique reporting guidelines.

Methods

This protocol is designed following the 2020 manual proposed by the Joanna Briggs Institute. To further ensure the soundness of the protocol, we also included multidisciplinary professionals (including methodologists, clinicians, and journal editors) to refine the protocol.

Discussion

Seven key steps for developing the scoping review are identified and presented in detail, including (I) identifying the research questions; (II) inclusion criteria; (III) search strategy; (IV) source of evidence selection; (V) data extraction; (VI) analysis of the evidence; and (VII) presentation of the results. Guided by this protocol, the subsequent scoping review will inform us the overview of surgical technique reporting guidelines and precisely guide our direction and next steps in improving surgical technique reporting guidelines.

Trial registration

This protocol is not registered as the PROSPERO database only accepts registration of systematic review protocols while does not accept registration of scoping review protocols.

A Systematic Review of Safety Reporting in Acute Spinal Cord Injury Clinical Trials: Challenges and Recommendations

Accurate safety information in published clinical trials guides the assessment of risk-benefit, as well as the design of future clinical trials. Comprehensive reporting of adverse events, toxicity, and discontinuations from acute spinal cord injury clinical trials is an essential step in this process. Here, we sought to assess the degree of "satisfactoriness" of reporting in past clinical trials in spinal cord injury. A review of citations from MEDLINE and EMBASE identified eligible clinical trials in acute (within 30 days) spinal cord injury. English language studies, published between 1980 and 2020, with sensory, motor, or autonomic neurological assessments as the primary outcome measure were eligible for inclusion. Criteria were then established to qualify the safety reporting as satisfactory (i.e., distinguished severe/life-threatening events), partially satisfactory, or unsatisfactory (i.e., only mentioned in general statements, or reported but without distinguishing severe events). A total of 40 trials were included. Satisfactory reporting for clinical adverse events was observed in 30% of trials; partially satisfactory was achieved by 10% of the trials, and the remaining 60% were unsatisfactory. The majority of trials were determined to be unsatisfactory for the reporting of laboratory-defined toxicity (82.5%); only 17.5% were satisfactory. Discontinuations were satisfactorily reported for the majority of trials (80%), with the remaining partially satisfactory (5%) or unsatisfactory (15%). Reporting of safety in clinical trials for acute spinal cord injury is suboptimal. Due to the complexities of acute spinal cord injury (e.g., polytrauma, multiple systems affected), tailored and specific standards for tracking adverse events and safety reporting should be established.

Rigor, reproducibility, and transparency of randomized controlled trials in obstetrics and gynecology

BACKGROUND

Randomized controlled trials are considered the highest level of evidence but fewer than half are reproducible. A rigorous methodology improves trial quality, but reproducibility may be limited by a lack of transparency in reporting. The Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials guidelines define reporting standards, and pretrial registration requires a predefined methodology and predefined outcomes.

OBJECTIVE

We evaluated obstetrics and gynecology trials published in 6 journals in terms of their adherence to the Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials guidelines. Second, we evaluated pretrial registration compliance and concordance between the registry and publication. Furthermore, we evaluated the differences in trial characteristics among randomized controlled trials with the highest level of compliance and those with lower levels of compliance and adherence to guidelines by journal type.

STUDY DESIGN

This was a cross-sectional study of obstetrics and gynecology trials published between 2017 and 2019 in 6 journals (American Journal of Obstetrics & Gynecology, BJOG: An International Journal of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, Obstetrics & Gynecology, The Journal of the American Medical Association, The Lancet, and The New England Journal of Medicine). Randomized controlled trials were identified via PubMed and manual journal archive searches. The primary outcome was adequate compliance with the Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials guidelines defined as ≥80% of the checklist items present. Secondary outcomes included completion of pretrial registration and concordance between the pretrial registration and publication in terms of the outcomes and sample size. We compared the characteristics between trials with adequate compliance and those with inadequate compliance. Secondary analyses included comparisons of characteristics of the trials in the top quartile for compliance with the Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials guidelines with those of the trials in lower quartiles and compliance with guidelines in obstetrics-gynecology vs non-obstetrics-gynecology journals. In an exploratory analysis, trends in compliance with the Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials guidelines across the study period were assessed. A post hoc sensitivity analysis evaluated the outcomes after the exclusion of 2 retracted trials.

RESULTS

Of the 170 trials included, 80% (95% confidence interval, 74%-86%) were adequately compliant with the Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials manuscript guidelines and 66% (95% confidence interval, 59%-73%) were compliant with the abstract guidelines. Nearly all trials (98%) reported pretrial registration. Concordance between pretrial registration and publication in terms of the primary outcomes was identified for 77% of the trials, concordance in terms of the secondary outcomes was observed in 32% of the trials, and concordance in terms of sample size was observed in 60% of the trials. Trials with adequate compliance were more likely to be preregistered, include an a priori power calculation, and use an intent to treat analysis. Trials in the top quartile for compliance with the Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials guidelines were more likely to be multicenter, international, and government funded. More trials from non-obstetrics-gynecology journals were in the top quartile for compliance with the Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials guidelines than trials from obstetrics-gynecology journals (64.9% vs 25.7%; P<.001). No significant trends in adequate compliance were identified across the study period. Results did not differ significantly in the sensitivity analysis.

CONCLUSION

Of all the trials included, 20% of obstetrics-gynecology trials published in 6 high-impact journals were not compliant with the Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials guidelines, and there were major discrepancies between pretrial registration and publication. Transparency, reproducibility, and scientific rigor in obstetrics and gynecology trial reporting needs to be improved.

PRILE 2021 guidelines for reporting laboratory studies in Endodontology: explanation and elaboration

Guidance to authors is needed to prevent their waste of talent, time and resources in writing manuscripts that will never be published in the highest-quality journals. Laboratory studies are probably the most common type of endodontic research projects because they make up the majority of manuscripts submitted for publication. Unfortunately, most of these manuscripts fail the peer-review process, primarily due to critical flaws in the reporting of the methods and results. Here, in order to guide authors, the Preferred Reporting Items for study Designs in Endodontology (PRIDE) team developed new reporting guidelines for laboratory-based studies: the Preferred Reporting Items for Laboratory studies in Endodontology (PRILE) 2021 guidelines. The PRILE 2021 guidelines were developed exclusively for the area of Endodontology by integrating and adapting the modified CONSORT checklist of items for reporting in vitro studies of dental materials and the Clinical and Laboratory Images in Publications (CLIP) principles. The process of developing the PRILE 2021 guidelines followed the recommendations of the Guidance for Developers of Health Research Reporting Guidelines. The aim of the current document is to provide authors with an explanation for each of the items in the PRILE 2021 checklist and flowchart with examples from the literature, and to provide advice from peer-reviewers and editors about how to solve each problem in manuscripts prior to their peer-review. The Preferred Reporting Items for study Designs in Endodontology (PRIDE) website (http://pride-endodonticguidelines.org/prile/) provides a link to the PRILE 2021 explanation and elaboration document as well as to the checklist and flowchart.

Dual Energy X-ray Absorptiometry Reports Fail to Adhere to International Guidelines

INTRODUCTION

Bone mineral density, measured by dual X-ray absorptiometry (DXA), is the gold standard for diagnosis of osteoporosis. The utility of DXA relies on the accuracy of scan acquisition, interpretation of data, and the adequacy of reports. The International Society for Clinical Densitometry (ISCD) has published guidelines regarding minimum reporting guidelines. This study assessed whether DXA reports for patients receiving care at an academic teaching hospital adhere to these reporting standards, and determine whether differences exist depending on patient factors and the imaging service.

METHODS

Patients aged ≥18 years, receiving care at specialist outpatient clinics between January 1, 2018 and December 31, 2019, with a DXA report available, were eligible for inclusion. DXA reports were manually reviewed for adherence to ISCD guidelines, with each criterion scored as one point, giving a total score of 14 for baseline DXA scans and 18 for repeat DXA scans. The score was then converted to a percentage.

RESULTS

Of 459 DXA scans included, 214 were performed internally at our hospital and 245 performed at 23 external imaging services. Mean (SD) patient age was 60 (16.3) years, and 75.8% were female. The overall median (IQR) report score was 57.1% (42.9, 82.4). ISCD criteria with the lowest scores were recommendation and timing of future DXA scans (included in 1.1% of reports) and investigation for secondary causes of osteoporosis (included in 1.2% of reports). Reports performed internally had significantly higher scores than those performed externally, after adjusting for age, sex, indication, and type of scan (incidence rate ratio 1.83, 95% confidence interval 1.77, 1.89). Baseline DXA reports had slightly higher scores than repeat DXA scans, and, among external imaging services, rural services had higher scores than metropolitan services.

CONCLUSION

This study, the largest comprehensive evaluation of DXA reports, highlights significant deficiencies and variation in report standards between imaging services. This has potential implications for osteoporosis diagnosis and management.

Methodological Analysis: Randomized Controlled Trials for Pfizer and Moderna COVID-19 Vaccines

Critical appraisal of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) determines rigor, quality, and whether the findings are applicable to the populations served in clinical practices. The authors conducted a rigorous analysis using the RCT Critical Appraisal Skills Programme (CASP) Checklist for the two RCTs Pfizer (New York, NY) and Moderna (Cambridge, MA) conducted and the reporting of these RCTs using the Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials checklist. The goals for this analysis were twofold: (1) enable health care providers to understand the methods and outcomes of these RCTs, and (2) enable health care providers and community leaders to become champions for the vaccines to reduce vaccine hesitancy among all populations. The analysis is presented using each of the 11 questions on the CASP tool while comparing the methodology and results for each vaccine. Most CASP tool items were positive or yes for both the Pfizer and Moderna RCTs. Items that were not scored as yes are discussed. The analysis outcomes revealed that both RCTs were rigorously conducted and provide an assurance to all health care providers and the public of the safety and efficacy of both vaccines to impact the astounding morbidity and mortality of COVID-19 disease. The authors believed that the analysis was an essential component of the distribution process to develop plans and communication strategies to reduce potential vaccine hesitancy and resistance.

Reporting of Studies Conducted on Austrian Claims Data

In healthcare studies, the analysis of claims data is gaining an increasingly important role. Observational studies should be reported in a manner that promotes internal and external validity assessment, with the exact and standardized description of items. Several international guidelines and checklists for reporting on secondary data are available. The aim of this work was to analyse the applicability of reporting guidelines especially for claims data. The STROSA-2 guidelines recommendations were evaluated by means of a report on a study on triptan medications in Austria. Six items were identified which could be expanded to support complete and transparent report on Austrian claims data. Therefore, we would suggest to add some details in the STROSA-2 guidelines concerning study design, legal foundations, data protection, data flow, descriptive results and risk of bias. The guidelines for reporting on Austrian claims data were successfully compiled with additional items. New guidelines should be further processed and tested with strong recommendations to focus on data limitations and legal aspects.

Minimum Reporting Standards for in vivo Magnetic Resonance Spectroscopy (MRSinMRS): Experts' consensus recommendations

The translation of MRS to clinical practice has been impeded by the lack of technical standardization. There are multiple methods of acquisition, post-processing, and analysis whose details greatly impact the interpretation of the results. These details are often not fully reported, making it difficult to assess MRS studies on a standardized basis. This hampers the reviewing of manuscripts, limits the reproducibility of study results, and complicates meta-analysis of the literature. In this paper a consensus group of MRS experts provides minimum guidelines for the reporting of MRS methods and results, including the standardized description of MRS hardware, data acquisition, analysis, and quality assessment. This consensus statement describes each of these requirements in detail and includes a checklist to assist authors and journal reviewers and to provide a practical way for journal editors to ensure that MRS studies are reported in full.

PRISMA-S: an extension to the PRISMA statement for reporting literature searches in systematic reviews. J Med Libr Assoc 2021;109:174-200. [PMID: 34285662 PMCID: PMC8270366 DOI: 10.5195/jmla.2021.962]

BACKGROUND

Literature searches underlie the foundations of systematic reviews and related review types. Yet, the literature searching component of systematic reviews and related review types is often poorly reported. Guidance for literature search reporting has been diverse and, in many cases, does not offer enough detail to authors who need more specific information about reporting search methods and information sources in a clear, reproducible way. This document presents the PRISMA-S (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analyses literature search extension) checklist, and explanation and elaboration.

METHODS

The checklist was developed using a three-stage Delphi survey process, followed by a consensus conference and public review process.

RESULTS

The final checklist includes sixteen reporting items, each of which is detailed with exemplar reporting and rationale.

CONCLUSIONS

The intent of PRISMA-S is to complement the PRISMA Statement and its extensions by providing a checklist that could be used by interdisciplinary authors, editors, and peer reviewers to verify that each component of a search is completely reported and, therefore, reproducible.