The quality of reporting in case reports of permanent neonatal diabetes mellitus: a cross-sectional study.

BACKGROUND: Although randomized trials and systematic reviews provide the best evidence to guide medical practice, many permanent neonatal diabetes mellitus (PNDM) studies have been published as case reports. However, the quality of these studies has not been assessed. The purpose of this study was to assess the extent to which the current case reports for PNDM comply with the Case Report (CARE) guidelines and to explore variables associated with the reporting. METHOD: Six English and four Chinese databases were searched from their inception to December 2022 for PNDM case reports. The 23 items CARE checklist was used to measure reporting quality. Primary outcome was the adherence rate of each CARE item and second outcome was total reporting score for each included PNDM case report. Linear and logistic regression analyses were used to examine the connection between five pre-specified predictor variables and the reporting quality. The predictor variables were impact factor of the published journal (<3.4 vs. ≥3.4, categorized according to the median), funding (yes vs. no), language (English vs. other language), published journal type (general vs. special) and year of publication (>2013 vs. ≤ 2013). RESULT: In total, 105 PNDM case reports were included in this study. None of the 105 PNDM case reports fulfilled all 23 items of the CARE checklist. The response rate of 11 items were under 50%, including prognostic characteristics presentation (0%), patient perspective interpretation (0%), diagnostic challenges statement (2.9%), clinical course summary (21.0%), diagnostic reasoning statement (22.9%), title identification (24.8%), case presentation (33.3%), disease history description (34.3%), strengths and limitations explanation (41.0%), informed consent statement (45.7%), and lesson elucidation (47.6%). This study identified that the PNDM case reports published in higher impact factor journals were statistically associated with a higher reporting quality. CONCLUSION: The reporting of case reports for PNDM is generally poor. As a result, this information may be misleading to providers, and the clinical applications may be detrimental to patient care. To improve reporting quality, journals should encourage strict adherence to the CARE guidelines.

REporting quality of PilOt randomised controlled trials in surgery (REPORTS): a methodological survey protocol.

INTRODUCTION: The aim of this methodological review is to evaluate the completeness of reporting of surgical pilot and feasibility randomised trials as per the Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials (CONSORT) extension to randomised pilot and feasibility trials. Moreover, we aim to assess for the presence of spin reporting and inconsistency between abstract and main text reporting in surgical pilot and feasibility randomised trials. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: A comprehensive, electronic search strategy will be used to identify studies indexed in Medline, Embase and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) databases. Studies will be included if they are pilot or feasibility randomised trials of surgical interventions. The primary outcome will be overall CONSORT statement extension to randomised pilot and feasibility trials checklist completeness. This will be defined as trials reporting each of the 40 items in the CONSORT statement extension to randomised pilot and feasibility trials checklist. Secondary outcomes will include the reporting of individual studies as per the CONSORT extension to randomised pilot and feasibility trials, the use of spin reporting strategies, trial factors associated with reporting quality and spin strategy use, and consistency between abstract and main text reporting. Poisson and logistic regressions will be performed to explore the association between trial factors and completeness of reporting as measured by the number of reported CONSORT items. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: This is a methodological survey that has been registered a priori on the International Prospective Register for Systematic Reviews (PROSPERO) (CRD42023475512). Local ethics approval is not required. We plan to disseminate study results through peer-reviewed publication and conference presentations.

Evaluation of methodological and reporting quality of systematic reviews on conservative non-pharmacological musculoskeletal pain management in children and adolescents: A methodological analysis.

BACKGROUND: There are no studies investigating the methodological and report quality of systematic reviews of non-pharmacological interventions for musculoskeletal pain management among children and adolescents. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the methodological and reporting quality of systematic reviews on conservative non-pharmacological pain management in children and adolescents with musculoskeletal pain. METHODS: Searches were conducted on the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, Medline, Embase, and three other databases. Two pairs of reviewers independently assessed each article according to the predetermined selection criteria. We assessed the methodological quality of systematic reviews, using the AMSTAR 2 checklist and the quality of reporting, using PRISMA checklist. Descriptive analysis was used to summarise the characteristics of all included systematic reviews. The percentage of systematic reviews achieving each item from the AMSTAR 2, PRISMA checklist and the overall confidence in the results were described. RESULTS: We included 17 systematic reviews of conservative non-pharmacological pain management for musculoskeletal pain in children and adolescents. Of the 17 systematic reviews included, nine (53%) were rated as "critically low", seven (41%) were rated as "low", and one (6%) was rated as "high" methodological quality by AMSTAR-2. The reporting quality by items from PRISMA range from 17.6% (95% CI 6.2 to 41) to 100% (95% CI 81.6 to 100). CONCLUSION: This systematic review of physical interventions in children and adolescents showed overall 'very low' to 'high' methodological quality and usually poor reporting quality.

Impact of a structured reporting template on the quality of HRCT radiology reports for interstitial lung disease.

PURPOSE: This QI study compared the completeness of HRCT radiology reports before and after the implementation of a disease-specific structured reporting template for suspected cases of interstitial lung disease (ILD). MATERIALS AND METHODS: A pre-post study of radiology reports for HRCT of the thorax at a multicenter health system was performed. Data was collected in 6-month period intervals before (June 2019-November 2019) and after (January 2021-June 2021) the implementation of a disease-specific template. The use of the template was voluntary. The primary outcome measure was the completeness of HRCT reports graded based on the documentation of ten descriptors. The secondary outcome measure assessed which descriptor(s) improved after the intervention. RESULTS: 521 HRCT reports before and 557 HRCT reports after the intervention were reviewed. Of the 557 reports, 118 reports (21%) were created using the structured reporting template. The mean completeness score of the pre-intervention group was 9.20 (SD = 1.08) and the post-intervention group was 9.36 (SD = 1.03) with a difference of -0.155, 95% CI [-0.2822, -0.0285, p < 0.0001]. Within the post-intervention group, the mean completeness score of the unstructured reports was 9.25 (SD = 1.07) and the template reports was 9.93 (SD = 0.25) with a difference of -0.677, 95% CI [-0.7871, -0.5671, p < 0.0001]. After the intervention, the use of two descriptors improved significantly: presence of honeycombing from 78.3% to 85.1% (p < 0.0039) and technique from 90% to 96.6% (p < 0.0001). DISCUSSION: Shifting to disease-specific structured reporting for HRCT exams of suspected ILD is beneficial, as it improves the completeness of radiology reports. Further research on how to improve the voluntary uptake of a disease-specific template is needed to help increase the acceptance of structured reporting among radiologists.

Recommended Guideline for Uniform Reporting of Neonatal Resuscitation: The Neonatal Utstein Style.

Clinical research on neonatal resuscitation has accelerated over recent decades. However, an important methodologic limitation is that there are no standardized definitions or reporting guidelines for neonatal resuscitation clinical studies. To address this, the International Liaison Committee on Resuscitation Neonatal Life Support Task Force established a working group to develop the first Utstein-style reporting guideline for neonatal resuscitation. The working group modeled this approach on previous Utstein-style guidelines for other populations. This reporting guideline focuses on resuscitation of newborns immediately after birth for respiratory failure, bradycardia, severe bradycardia, or cardiac arrest. We identified 7 relevant domains: setting, patient, antepartum, birth/preresuscitation, resuscitation process, postresuscitation process, and outcomes. Within each domain, relevant data elements were identified as core versus supplemental. Core data elements should be collected and reported for all neonatal resuscitation studies, while supplemental data elements may be collected and reported using standard definitions when possible. The Neonatal Utstein template includes both core and supplemental elements across the 7 domains, and the associated Data Table provides detailed information and reporting standards for each data element. The Neonatal Utstein reporting guideline is anticipated to assist investigators engaged in neonatal resuscitation research by standardizing data definitions. The guideline will facilitate data pooling in meta-analyses, enhancing the strength of neonatal resuscitation treatment recommendations and subsequent guidelines.

Diseño y validación de una rúbrica analítica para evaluar manuscritos científicos / Design and validation of an analytical rubric for evaluating scientific manuscripts

Introducción: La investigación científica tiende a ser presentada mediante reportes escritos, que inicialmente son denominados manuscritos, la revisión de su calidad es importante en el marco del rigor metodológico y científico. Objetivo: Diseñar y validar una rúbrica analítica para evaluar manuscritos científicos. Material y Métodos: Estudio instrumental. Donde se elabora una rúbrica analítica compuesta por 21 aspectos integrados en seis dimensiones y cuatro niveles de desempeño (Excelente, Bien, Regular, Por mejorar). Se utiliza la metodología de jueces expertos (n= 9), fiabilidad mediante el Alfa de Krippendorff (α) y relación prueba criterio externo e información cualitativa para la mejora de los indicadores. Resultados: El juicio de expertos indicó que los 21 aspectos a evaluar pueden ser considerados validos (V de Aiken ≥ 0.70) y fiables (α ≥ 0.70). Además, las sugerencias de los expertos permitieron mejoras cualitativas al instrumento. La aplicación piloto con un grupo de siete evaluadores indicó que la prueba cuenta con poder predictivo, porque se encontró que las puntuaciones de los jueces disminuyen mientras disminuye la calidad del manuscrito seleccionado. Conclusiones: La rúbrica analítica elaborada es un instrumento válido y fiable que puede ser utilizado para la valoración de manuscritos científicos en el ámbito de la educación médica. El proceso metodológico brinda evidencias solidas de su funcionamiento. A pesar de eso, se anima a continuar revisando el instrumento como parte de su proceso de mejora continua.

Introduction: Scientific research tends to be presented through written reports, which are initially called manuscripts. The review of their quality is important in the framework of methodological and scientific rigor. Objective: To design and validate an analytical rubric to evaluate scientific manuscripts. Material and Methods: Instrumental study. An analytical rubric composed of 21 aspects integrated into six dimensions and four performance levels (excellent, good, fair, to be improved) was developed. The methodology of expert judges (n = 9), reliability by means of Krippendorff's alpha (α), external criterion test, and qualitative information for the improvement of the indicators were used. Results: The expert judgment indicated that the 21 aspects to be evaluated can be considered valid (Aiken's V ≥ 0.70) and dependable (α ≥ 0.70). In addition, the experts' suggestions allowed qualitative improvements to the instrument. The pilot application with a group of seven evaluators indicated that the test has predictive power because it was found that the judges' scores decreased as the quality of the selected manuscript decreased. Conclusions: The analytical rubric elaborated is a valid and reliable instrument that can be used for the assessment of scientific manuscripts in the field of medical education. The methodological process provides solid evidence of its performance. Nevertheless, it is encouraged to continue revising the instrument as part of its continuous improvement process.