Revisiting the impact of race/ethnicity in endometriosis.

Endometriosis is a chronic, multisystemic disease often presenting with significant phenotypic variation amongst patients. The impact of race/ethnicity on the prevalence of endometriosis, as well as disease presentation, is a question of interest which has been explored for the last century. This narrative review explores the historical perspective of endometriosis and race/ethnicity as well as the evidence available to date. Furthermore, we discuss the potential implication of the bias perpetuated on this topic, specifically in the areas of medical education, research, and clinical care. In consideration of these intersecting realms, we suggest priorities for future consideration of race/ethnicity as it pertains to the delivery of care for endometriosis patients. Lay summary: The relationship between race/ethnicity and endometriosis has been explored for over a century. Historical bias and poorly conducted research have led to the idea that this condition is less likely to be diagnosed in certain racial groups, such as Black women. We review the current state of evidence and highlight important limitations within medical education and research on this topic. Finally, we advocate for a shifting viewpoint as we strive to deliver equitable and outstanding care for all endometriosis patients.

Evaluation of Opioid Prescribing Patterns and Use Following Hysterectomy for Benign Indication: A Prospective Cohort Study.

OBJECTIVES: To evaluate surgeon opioid prescribing patterns for patients undergoing hysterectomy for benign indication, as well as patient use of postoperative medications and satisfaction with postoperative pain management. METHODS: Patients undergoing hysterectomy for benign indications at Kingston Health Sciences Centre were invited to participate in a telephone survey 2 weeks post-surgery to review their analgesia use and pain management. Patient demographics, medical history, intraoperative surgical details, and postoperative prescriptions were gathered through patient record review. Opioid prescribing and utilization patterns were assessed, as was satisfaction with postoperative pain management. RESULTS: Of 124 eligible patients 110 (89%) completed the telephone survey, a mean 15.9 ± 2.3 days after surgery. The mean age of participants was 51.6 ± 11.9 years. Most surgeries (84.5%) were minimally invasive, and 45.5% of patients were discharged within 24 hours of surgery. An opioid prescription was given to 71.8% of participants, and 52.7% used at least 1 dose of opioid medication after discharge. Most participants described very good or adequate postoperative pain management (88.2%). Satisfaction with postoperative pain control was not associated with receipt of an opioid prescription (P = 0.89). A greater proportion of those who used 1 or more doses of opioids versus none indicated poor or inadequate pain management (19.0% vs. 4.1%; P = 0.035). CONCLUSION: Many patients do not use postoperative opioid analgesia following hospital discharge after hysterectomy, without experiencing poor pain management. Surgeons should assess each individual and tailor the analgesia plan as necessary, optimizing non-opioid options.

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.

A systematic review of comparisons between protocols or registrations and full reports in primary biomedical research.

BACKGROUND: Prospective study protocols and registrations can play a significant role in reducing incomplete or selective reporting of primary biomedical research, because they are pre-specified blueprints which are available for the evaluation of, and comparison with, full reports. However, inconsistencies between protocols or registrations and full reports have been frequently documented. In this systematic review, which forms part of our series on the state of reporting of primary biomedical, we aimed to survey the existing evidence of inconsistencies between protocols or registrations (i.e., what was planned to be done and/or what was actually done) and full reports (i.e., what was reported in the literature); this was based on findings from systematic reviews and surveys in the literature. METHODS: Electronic databases, including CINAHL, MEDLINE, Web of Science, and EMBASE, were searched to identify eligible surveys and systematic reviews. Our primary outcome was the level of inconsistency (expressed as a percentage, with higher percentages indicating greater inconsistency) between protocols or registration and full reports. We summarized the findings from the included systematic reviews and surveys qualitatively. RESULTS: There were 37 studies (33 surveys and 4 systematic reviews) included in our analyses. Most studies (n = 36) compared protocols or registrations with full reports in clinical trials, while a single survey focused on primary studies of clinical trials and observational research. High inconsistency levels were found in outcome reporting (ranging from 14% to 100%), subgroup reporting (from 12% to 100%), statistical analyses (from 9% to 47%), and other measure comparisons. Some factors, such as outcomes with significant results, sponsorship, type of outcome and disease speciality were reported to be significantly related to inconsistent reporting. CONCLUSIONS: We found that inconsistent reporting between protocols or registrations and full reports of primary biomedical research is frequent, prevalent and suboptimal. We also identified methodological issues such as the need for consensus on measuring inconsistency across sources for trial reports, and more studies evaluating transparency and reproducibility in reporting all aspects of study design and analysis. A joint effort involving authors, journals, sponsors, regulators and research ethics committees is required to solve this problem.

A scoping review of comparisons between abstracts and full reports in primary biomedical research.

BACKGROUND: Evidence shows that research abstracts are commonly inconsistent with their corresponding full reports, and may mislead readers. In this scoping review, which is part of our series on the state of reporting of primary biomedical research, we summarized the evidence from systematic reviews and surveys, to investigate the current state of inconsistent abstract reporting, and to evaluate factors associated with improved reporting by comparing abstracts and their full reports. METHODS: We searched EMBASE, Web of Science, MEDLINE, and CINAHL from January 1st 1996 to September 30th 2016 to retrieve eligible systematic reviews and surveys. Our primary outcome was the level of inconsistency between abstracts and corresponding full reports, which was expressed as a percentage (with a lower percentage indicating better reporting) or categorized rating (such as major/minor difference, high/medium/low inconsistency), as reported by the authors. We used medians and interquartile ranges to describe the level of inconsistency across studies. No quantitative syntheses were conducted. Data from the included systematic reviews or surveys was summarized qualitatively. RESULTS: Seventeen studies that addressed this topic were included. The level of inconsistency was reported to have a median of 39% (interquartile range: 14% - 54%), and to range from 4% to 78%. In some studies that separated major from minor inconsistency, the level of major inconsistency ranged from 5% to 45% (median: 19%, interquartile range: 7% - 31%), which included discrepancies in specifying the study design or sample size, designating a primary outcome measure, presenting main results, and drawing a conclusion. A longer time interval between conference abstracts and the publication of full reports was found to be the only factor which was marginally or significantly associated with increased likelihood of reporting inconsistencies. CONCLUSIONS: This scoping review revealed that abstracts are frequently inconsistent with full reports, and efforts are needed to improve the consistency of abstract reporting in the primary biomedical community.

State of reporting of primary biomedical research: a scoping review protocol.

INTRODUCTION: Incomplete or inconsistent reporting remains a major concern in the biomedical literature. Incomplete or inconsistent reporting may yield the published findings unreliable, irreproducible or sometimes misleading. In this study based on evidence from systematic reviews and surveys that have evaluated the reporting issues in primary biomedical studies, we aim to conduct a scoping review with focuses on (1) the state-of-the-art extent of adherence to the emerging reporting guidelines in primary biomedical research, (2) the inconsistency between protocols or registrations and full reports and (3) the disagreement between abstracts and full-text articles. METHODS AND ANALYSES: We will use a comprehensive search strategy to retrieve all available and eligible systematic reviews and surveys in the literature. We will search the following electronic databases: Web of Science, Excerpta Medica Database (EMBASE), MEDLINE and Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature (CINAHL). Our outcomes are levels of adherence to reporting guidelines, levels of consistency between protocols or registrations and full reports and the agreement between abstracts and full reports, all of which will be expressed as percentages, quality scores or categorised rating (such as high, medium and low). No pooled analyses will be performed quantitatively given the heterogeneity of the included systematic reviews and surveys. Likewise, factors associated with improved completeness and consistency of reporting will be summarised qualitatively. The quality of the included systematic reviews will be evaluated using AMSTAR (a measurement tool to assess systematic reviews). ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: All findings will be published in peer-reviewed journals and relevant conferences. These results may advance our understanding of the extent of incomplete and inconsistent reporting, factors related to improved completeness and consistency of reporting and potential recommendations for various stakeholders in the biomedical community.