Mailed fecal immunochemical test outreach for colorectal cancer screening: Summary of a Centers for Disease Control and Prevention-sponsored Summit.

Uptake of colorectal cancer screening remains suboptimal. Mailed fecal immunochemical testing (FIT) offers promise for increasing screening rates, but optimal strategies for implementation have not been well synthesized. In June 2019, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention convened a meeting of subject matter experts and stakeholders to answer key questions regarding mailed FIT implementation in the United States. Points of agreement included: 1) primers, such as texts, telephone calls, and printed mailings before mailed FIT, appear to contribute to effectiveness; 2) invitation letters should be brief and easy to read, and the signatory should be tailored based on setting; 3) instructions for FIT completion should be simple and address challenges that may lead to failed laboratory processing, such as notation of collection date; 4) reminders delivered to initial noncompleters should be used to increase the FIT return rate; 5) data infrastructure should identify eligible patients and track each step in the outreach process, from primer delivery through abnormal FIT follow-up; 6) protocols and procedures such as navigation should be in place to promote colonoscopy after abnormal FIT; 7) a high-quality, 1-sample FIT should be used; 8) sustainability requires a program champion and organizational support for the work, including sufficient funding and external policies (such as quality reporting requirements) to drive commitment to program investment; and 9) the cost effectiveness of mailed FIT has been established. Participants concluded that mailed FIT is an effective and efficient strategy with great potential for increasing colorectal cancer screening in diverse health care settings if more widely implemented.

Follow the trail: Using insights from the growth of palliative care to propose a roadmap for cancer rehabilitation.

Despite research explicating the benefits of cancer rehabilitation interventions to optimize physical, social, emotional, and vocational functioning, many reports document low rates of referral to and uptake of rehabilitation in oncology. Cancer rehabilitation clinicians, researchers, and policy makers could learn from the multidisciplinary specialty of palliative care, which has benefited from a growth strategy and has garnered national recognition as an important and necessary aspect of oncology care. The purpose of this article is to explore the actions that have increased the uptake and integration of palliative care to yield insights and multimodal strategies for the development and growth of cancer rehabilitation. After examining the history of palliative care and its growth, the authors highlight 5 key strategies that may benefit the field of cancer rehabilitation: 1) stimulating the science in specific gap areas; 2) creating clinical practice guidelines; 3) building clinical capacity; 4) ascertaining and responding to public opinion; and 5) advocating for public policy change. Coordinated and simultaneous advances on these 5 strategies may catalyze the growth, utilization, and effectiveness of patient screening, timely referrals, and delivery of appropriate cancer rehabilitation care that reduces disability and improves quality of life for cancer survivors who need these services.

Implementing personalized pathways for cancer follow-up care in the United States: Proceedings from an American Cancer Society-American Society of Clinical Oncology summit.

A new approach to cancer follow-up care is necessary to meet the needs of cancer survivors while dealing with increasing volume and provider shortages, knowledge gaps, and costs to both health care systems and patients. An approach that triages patients to personalized follow-up care pathways, depending on the type(s) and level(s) of resources needed for patients' long-term care, is in use in the United Kingdom and other countries and has been shown to meet patients' needs, more efficiently use the health care system, and reduce costs. Recognizing that testing and implementing a similar personalized approach to cancer follow-up care in the United States will require a multipronged strategy, the American Cancer Society and the American Society of Clinical Oncology convened a summit in January 2018 to identify the needed steps to move this work from concept to implementation. The summit identified 4 key strategies going forward: 1) developing a candidate model (or models) of care delivery; 2) building the case for implementation by conducting studies modeling the effects of personalized pathways of follow-up care on patient outcomes, workforce and health care resources, and utilization and costs; 3) creating consensus-based guidelines to guide the delivery of personalized care pathways; and 4) identifying and filling research gaps to develop and implement needed care changes. While these national strategies are pursued, oncology and primary care providers can lay the groundwork for implementation by assessing their patients' risk of recurrence and the chronic and late effects of cancer as well as other health care needs and resources available for care and by considering triaging patients accordingly, referring patients to appropriate specialized survivorship clinics as these are developed, helping to support patients who are capable of self-managing their health, setting expectations with patients from diagnosis onward for the need for follow-up in primary care and/or a survivorship clinic, and improving coordination of care between oncology and primary care.

Equitably improving outcomes for cancer survivors and supporting caregivers: A blueprint for care delivery, research, education, and policy.

Cancer care delivery is being shaped by growing numbers of cancer survivors coupled with provider shortages, rising costs of primary treatment and follow-up care, significant survivorship health disparities, increased reliance on informal caregivers, and the transition to value-based care. These factors create a compelling need to provide coordinated, comprehensive, personalized care for cancer survivors in ways that meet survivors' and caregivers' unique needs while minimizing the impact of provider shortages and controlling costs for health care systems, survivors, and families. The authors reviewed research identifying and addressing the needs of cancer survivors and caregivers and used this synthesis to create a set of critical priorities for care delivery, research, education, and policy to equitably improve survivor outcomes and support caregivers. Efforts are needed in 3 priority areas: 1) implementing routine assessment of survivors' needs and functioning and caregivers' needs; 2) facilitating personalized, tailored, information and referrals from diagnosis onward for both survivors and caregivers, shifting services from point of care to point of need wherever possible; and 3) disseminating and supporting the implementation of new care methods and interventions.

Brachytherapy: An overview for clinicians.

Brachytherapy is a specific form of radiotherapy consisting of the precise placement of radioactive sources directly into or next to the tumor. This technique is indicated for patients affected by various types of cancers. It is an optimal tool for delivering very high doses to the tumor focally while minimizing the probability of normal tissue complications. Physicians from a wide range of specialties may be involved in either the referral to or the placement of brachytherapy. Many patients require brachytherapy as either primary treatment or as part of their oncologic care. On the basis of high-level evidence from randomized controlled trials, brachytherapy is mainly indicated: 1) as standard in combination with chemoradiation in patients with locally advanced cervical cancer; 2) in surgically treated patients with uterine endometrial cancer for decreasing the risk of vaginal vault recurrence; 3) in patients with high-risk prostate cancer to perform dose escalation and improve progression-free survival; and 4) in patients with breast cancer as adjuvant, accelerated partial breast irradiation or to boost the tumor bed. In this review, the authors discuss the clinical relevance of brachytherapy with a focus on indications, levels of evidence, and results in the overall context of radiation use for patients with cancer.

Implementation of Obesity Science Into Clinical Practice: A Scientific Statement From the American Heart Association.

Obesity is a recognized public health epidemic with a prevalence that continues to increase dramatically in nearly all populations, impeding progress in reducing incidence rates of cardiovascular disease. Over the past decade, obesity science has evolved to improve knowledge of its multifactorial causes, identifying important biological causes and sociological determinants of obesity. Treatments for obesity have also continued to develop, with more evidence-based programs for lifestyle modification, new pharmacotherapies, and robust data to support bariatric surgery. Despite these advancements, there continues to be a substantial gap between the scientific evidence and the implementation of research into clinical practice for effective obesity management. Addressing barriers to obesity science implementation requires adopting feasible methodologies and targeting multiple levels (eg, clinician, community, system, policy) to facilitate the delivery of obesity-targeted therapies and maximize the effectiveness of guideline-driven care to at-need patient populations. This scientific statement (1) describes strategies shown to be effective or promising for enhancing translation and clinical application of obesity-based research; (2) identifies key gaps in the implementation of obesity science into clinical practice; and (3) provides guidance and resources for health care professionals, health care systems, and other stakeholders to promote broader implementation and uptake of obesity science for improved population-level obesity management. In addition, advances in implementation science that hold promise to bridge the know-do gap in obesity prevention and treatment are discussed. Last, this scientific statement highlights implications for health research policy and future research to improve patient care models and optimize the delivery and sustainability of equitable obesity-related care.

Effects of an Intervention to Improve Evidence-Based Care for People With Diabetes and Cardiovascular Disease Across Sex, Race, and Ethnicity Subgroups: Insights From the COORDINATE-Diabetes Trial.

BACKGROUND: Results from the COORDINATE-Diabetes trial (Coordinating Cardiology Clinics Randomized Trial of Interventions to Improve Outcomes - Diabetes) demonstrated that a multifaceted, clinic-based intervention increased prescription of evidence-based medical therapies to participants with type 2 diabetes and atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease. This secondary analysis assessed whether intervention success was consistent across sex, race, and ethnicity. METHODS: COORDINATE-Diabetes, a cluster randomized trial, recruited participants from 43 US cardiology clinics (20 randomized to intervention and 23 randomized to usual care). The primary outcome was the proportion of participants prescribed all 3 groups of evidence-based therapy (high-intensity statin, angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitor/angiotensin receptor blocker, and sodium-glucose cotransporter-2 inhibitor or glucagon-like peptide 1 receptor agonist) at last trial assessment (6 to 12 months). In this prespecified analysis, mixed-effects logistic regression models were used to assess the outcome by self-reported sex, race, and ethnicity in the intervention and usual care groups, with adjustment for baseline characteristics, medications, comorbidities, and site location. RESULTS: Among 1045 participants with type 2 diabetes and atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease, the median age was 70 years, 32% were female, 16% were Black, and 9% were Hispanic. At the last trial assessment, there was an absolute increase in the proportion of participants prescribed all 3 groups of evidence-based therapy in women (36% versus 15%), Black participants (41% versus 18%), and Hispanic participants (46% versus 18%) with the intervention compared with usual care, with consistent benefit across sex (male versus female; Pinteraction=0.44), race (Black versus White; Pinteraction=0.59), and ethnicity (Hispanic versus Non-Hispanic; Pinteraction= 0.78). CONCLUSIONS: The COORDINATE-Diabetes intervention successfully improved delivery of evidence-based care, regardless of sex, race, or ethnicity. Widespread dissemination of this intervention could improve equitable health care quality, particularly among women and minority communities who are frequently underrepresented in clinical trials. REGISTRATION: URL: https://www.clinicaltrials.gov. Unique identifier: NCT03936660.

Effect of Brain-Gut Behavioral Treatments on Abdominal Pain in Irritable Bowel Syndrome: Systematic Review and Network Meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND & AIMS: Some brain-gut behavioral treatments (BGBTs) are beneficial for global symptoms in irritable bowel syndrome (IBS). United States management guidelines suggest their use in patients with persistent abdominal pain, but their specific effect on this symptom has not been assessed systematically. METHODS: We searched the literature through December 16, 2023, for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) assessing efficacy of BGBTs for adults with IBS, compared with each other or a control intervention. Trials provided an assessment of abdominal pain resolution or improvement at treatment completion. We extracted data as intention-to-treat analyses, assuming dropouts to be treatment failures and reporting pooled relative risks (RRs) of abdominal pain not improving with 95% confidence intervals (CIs), ranking therapies according to the P score. RESULTS: We identified 42 eligible randomized controlled trials comprising 5220 participants. After treatment completion, the BGBTs with the largest numbers of trials and patients recruited demonstrating efficacy for abdominal pain, specifically, included self-guided/minimal contact cognitive behavioral therapy (CBT) (RR, 0.71; 95% CI, 0.54-0.95; P score, 0.58), face-to-face multicomponent behavioral therapy (RR, 0.72; 95% CI, 0.54-0.97; P score, 0.56), and face-to-face gut-directed hypnotherapy (RR, 0.77; 95% CI, 0.61-0.96; P score, 0.49). Among trials recruiting only patients with refractory global IBS symptoms, group CBT was more efficacious than routine care for abdominal pain, but no other significant differences were detected. No trials were low risk of bias across all domains, and there was evidence of funnel plot asymmetry. CONCLUSIONS: Several BGBTs, including self-guided/minimal contact CBT, face-to-face multicomponent behavioral therapy, and face-to-face gut-directed hypnotherapy may be efficacious for abdominal pain in IBS, although none was superior to another.

A methodological framework for rigorous systematic reviews: Tailoring comprehensive analyses to clinicians and healthcare professionals.

Systematic reviews represent a fundamental study design, providing the highest level of evidence across diverse research inquiries, encompassing both public health and clinical research and practice. However, for healthcare professionals, the process of selecting, synthesizing, and interpreting evidence can be challenging, and requires specialized skills. Therefore, it is imperative to explore innovative solutions aimed at simplifying and making the traditional systematic review process more accessible while ensuring the validity and reliability of results. In this perspective, our research objective is to develop a systematic review framework that, while maintaining a rigorous methodological approach, streamlines the process for healthcare professionals. This study describes such approach in every phase, from the collection of evidence to the writing of the text, creating a guide for the healthcare professional who approaches this type of research. The qualitative and organizational analysis tools are also described, providing useful information for the use of non-paid programs. This systematic review aims to develop a framework with a rigorous methodological approach that allows simplify the process for clinicians and healthcare professionals. The implementation of this methodology in clinical practice offers new perspectives to ensure a thoughtful consideration and application of scientific evidence and opens the way to innovative and easily accessible solutions to facilitate the conduct of systematic reviews in the clinical care setting.

Shift-Level Team Familiarity Is Associated with Improved Outcomes in Mechanically Ventilated Adults.

RATIONALE: Organizing intensive care unit (ICU) interprofessional teams is a high priority due to workforce needs, but the role of interprofessional familiarity remains unexplored. OBJECTIVE: Determine if mechanically ventilated patients cared for by teams with greater familiarity have improved outcomes, such as lower mortality, shorter duration of mechanical ventilation (MV), and greater spontaneous breathing trial (SBT) implementation. METHODS: We used electronic health records data of 5 ICUs in an academic medical center to map interprofessional teams and their ICU networks, measuring team familiarity as network coreness and mean team value. We used patient-level regression models to link team familiarity with patient outcomes, accounting for patient/unit factors. We also performed a split-sample analysis by using 2018 team familiarity data to predict 2019 outcomes. MEASUREMENTS: Team familiarity was measured as the average number of patients shared by each clinician with all other clinicians in the ICU (i.e., coreness) and the average number of patients shared by any two members of the team (i.e., mean team value). MAIN RESULTS: Among 4,485 encounters, unadjusted mortality was 12.9%, average duration of MV was 2.32 days and SBT implementation was 89%; average team coreness was 467.2 (SD = 96.15) and average mean team value was 87.02 (SD=42.42). A standard-deviation increase in team coreness was significantly associated with a 4.5% greater probability of SBT implementation, 23% shorter MV duration, and 3.8% lower probability of dying; mean team value was significantly associated with lower mortality. Split-sample results were attenuated but congruent in direction and interpretation. CONCLUSIONS: Interprofessional familiarity was associated with improved outcomes; assignment models that prioritize familiarity might be a novel solution.

Simultaneous multidimensional impacts of active learning revealed in a first implementation in the MENA region.

Enhancing science education in developing countries has been a focal point of many studies and efforts, but reform has mainly been driven by top-down approaches that often face impediments. A shift to active learning pedagogies can potentially address these challenges, but it has thus far been predominantly implemented and understood in developed countries. Thanks to the growing accessibility of open education resources and ubiquitous technologies, education reform can now be carried out from the bottom up. Here, we present the results of a two-year implementation of active learning in five core physics and astronomy courses comprising 2,145 students from the Middle East and North Africa (MENA) region. Simultaneous improvements are observed in both students' performance and their perception of the quality of learning; means improved by 9% (0.5 SD) and 25% (1.5 SD), respectively. The performance gap between students in the bottom quartile and those in the top quartiles was narrowed by 17%. The failure rate was reduced to a third of that in traditional classes; this is 36% better than the results in developed countries, indicating a greater need for active pedagogies by MENA students. Our findings reveal a multidimensional positive influence of active learning, the viability of its grassroots implementation with open resources, and its sustainability and reproducibility. We suggest that wider implementation can boost education-driven economic growth by 1% in per capita gross domestic product [GDP], substantially cut costs of repeating courses, and produce a more competent STEM workforce-all of which are urgently needed to stimulate development and growth.

Bending the curve: Simple but massive conservation action leads to landscape-scale recovery of amphibians.

Success stories are rare in conservation science, hindered also by the research-implementation gap, where scientific insights rarely inform practice and practical implementation is rarely evaluated scientifically. Amphibian population declines, driven by multiple stressors, are emblematic of the freshwater biodiversity crisis. Habitat creation is a straightforward conservation action that has been shown to locally benefit amphibians, as well as other taxa, but does it benefit entire amphibian communities at large spatial scales? Here, we evaluate a landscape-scale pond-construction program by fitting dynamic occupancy models to 20 y of monitoring data for 12 pond-breeding amphibian species in the Swiss state Aargau, a densely populated area of the Swiss lowlands with intensive land use. After decades of population declines, the number of occupied ponds increased statewide for 10 out of 12 species, while one species remained stable and one species further declined between 1999 and 2019. Despite regional differences, in 77% of all 43 regional metapopulations, the colonization and subsequent occupation of new ponds stabilized (14%) or increased (63%) metapopulation size. Likely mechanisms include increased habitat availability, restoration of habitat dynamics, and increased connectivity between ponds. Colonization probabilities reflected species-specific preferences for characteristics of ponds and their surroundings, which provides evidence-based information for future pond construction targeting specific species. The relatively simple but landscape-scale and persistent conservation action of constructing hundreds of new ponds halted declines and stabilized or increased the state-wide population size of all but one species, despite ongoing pressures from other stressors in a human-dominated landscape.

Toward evidence-based communication on overweight body mass index and mortality.

BACKGROUND: Reducing overweight and obesity has been a longstanding focus of public health messaging and physician-patient interactions. Clinical guidelines by major public health organizations describe both overweight and obesity as risk factors for mortality and other health conditions. Accordingly, a majority of primary care physicians believe that overweight BMI (even without obesity) strongly increases mortality risk. MAIN POINTS: The current evidence base suggests that although both obese BMI and underweight BMI are consistently associated with increased all-cause mortality, overweight BMI (without obesity) is not meaningfully associated with increased mortality. In fact, a number of studies suggest modest protective, rather than detrimental, associations of overweight BMI with all-cause mortality. Given this current evidence base, clinical guidelines and physician perceptions substantially overstate all-cause mortality risks associated with the range of BMIs classified as "overweight" but not "obese." Discrepancies between evidence and communication regarding mortality raise the question of whether similar discrepancies exist for other health outcomes. CONCLUSIONS: Health communication that inaccurately conveys current evidence may do more harm than good; this applies to communication from health authorities to health practitioners as well as to communication from health practitioners to individual patients. We give three recommendations to better align health communication with the current evidence. First, recommendations to the public and health practitioners should distinguish overweight from obese BMI and at this time should not describe overweight BMI as a risk factor for all-cause mortality. Second, primary care physicians' widespread misconceptions about overweight BMI should be rectified. Third, the evidence basis for other potential risks or benefits of overweight BMI should be rigorously examined and incorporated appropriately into health communication.

The quality of care delivered to residents in long-term care in Australia: an indicator-based review of resident records (CareTrack Aged study).

BACKGROUND: This study estimated the prevalence of evidence-based care received by a population-based sample of Australian residents in long-term care (LTC) aged ≥ 65 years in 2021, measured by adherence to clinical practice guideline (CPG) recommendations. METHODS: Sixteen conditions/processes of care amendable to estimating evidence-based care at a population level were identified from prevalence data and CPGs. Candidate recommendations (n = 5609) were extracted from 139 CPGs which were converted to indicators. National experts in each condition rated the indicators via the RAND-UCLA Delphi process. For the 16 conditions, 236 evidence-based care indicators were ratified. A multi-stage sampling of LTC facilities and residents was undertaken. Trained aged-care nurses then undertook manual structured record reviews of care delivered between 1 March and 31 May 2021 (our record review period) to assess adherence with the indicators. RESULTS: Care received by 294 residents with 27,585 care encounters in 25 LTC facilities was evaluated. Residents received care for one to thirteen separate clinical conditions/processes of care (median = 10, mean = 9.7). Adherence to evidence-based care indicators was estimated at 53.2% (95% CI: 48.6, 57.7) ranging from a high of 81.3% (95% CI: 75.6, 86.3) for Bladder and Bowel to a low of 12.2% (95% CI: 1.6, 36.8) for Depression. Six conditions (skin integrity, end-of-life care, infection, sleep, medication, and depression) had less than 50% adherence with indicators. CONCLUSIONS: This is the first study of adherence to evidence-based care for people in LTC using multiple conditions and a standardised method. Vulnerable older people are not receiving evidence-based care for many physical problems, nor care to support their mental health nor for end-of-life care. The six conditions in which adherence with indicators was less than 50% could be the focus of improvement efforts.

Learning together for better health using an evidence-based Learning Health System framework: a case study in stroke.

BACKGROUND: In the context of expanding digital health tools, the health system is ready for Learning Health System (LHS) models. These models, with proper governance and stakeholder engagement, enable the integration of digital infrastructure to provide feedback to all relevant parties including clinicians and consumers on performance against best practice standards, as well as fostering innovation and aligning healthcare with patient needs. The LHS literature primarily includes opinion or consensus-based frameworks and lacks validation or evidence of benefit. Our aim was to outline a rigorously codesigned, evidence-based LHS framework and present a national case study of an LHS-aligned national stroke program that has delivered clinical benefit. MAIN TEXT: Current core components of a LHS involve capturing evidence from communities and stakeholders (quadrant 1), integrating evidence from research findings (quadrant 2), leveraging evidence from data and practice (quadrant 3), and generating evidence from implementation (quadrant 4) for iterative system-level improvement. The Australian Stroke program was selected as the case study as it provides an exemplar of how an iterative LHS works in practice at a national level encompassing and integrating evidence from all four LHS quadrants. Using this case study, we demonstrate how to apply evidence-based processes to healthcare improvement and embed real-world research for optimising healthcare improvement. We emphasize the transition from research as an endpoint, to research as an enabler and a solution for impact in healthcare improvement. CONCLUSIONS: The Australian Stroke program has nationally improved stroke care since 2007, showcasing the value of integrated LHS-aligned approaches for tangible impact on outcomes. This LHS case study is a practical example for other health conditions and settings to follow suit.

Evidence for Policies and Practices to Address Global Food Insecurity.

Food insecurity affects an estimated 691-783 million people globally and is disproportionately high in Africa and Asia. It arises from poverty, armed conflict, and climate change, among other demographic and globalization forces. This review summarizes evidence for policies and practices across five elements of the agrifood system framework and identifies gaps that inform an agenda for future research. Under availability, imbalanced agriculture policies protect primarily staple food producers, and there is limited evidence on food security impacts for smallholder and women food producers. Evidence supports the use of cash transfers and food aid for affordability and school feeding for multiple benefits. Food-based dietary guidelines can improve the nutritional quality of dietary patterns, yet they may not reflect the latest evidence or food supplies. Evidence from the newer food environment elements, promotion and sustainability, while relatively minimal, provides insight into achieving long-term impacts. To eliminate hunger, our global community should embrace integrated approaches and bring evidence-based policies and practices to scale.

Moving Forward on Tumor Pathology Research Reporting: A Guide for Pathologists From the World Health Organization Classification of Tumors Living Evidence Gap Map by Tumour Type Group.

Evidence-based medicine (EBM) can be an unfamiliar territory for those working in tumor pathology research, and there is a great deal of uncertainty about how to undertake an EBM approach to planning and reporting histopathology-based studies. In this article, reviewed and endorsed by the Word Health Organization International Agency for Research on Cancer's International Collaboration for Cancer Classification and Research, we aim to help pathologists and researchers understand the basics of planning an evidence-based tumor pathology research study, as well as our recommendations on how to report the findings from these. We introduce some basic EBM concepts, a framework for research questions, and thoughts on study design and emphasize the concept of reporting standards. There are many study-specific reporting guidelines available, and we provide an overview of these. However, existing reporting guidelines perhaps do not always fit tumor pathology research papers, and hence, here, we collate the key reporting data set together into one generic checklist that we think will simplify the task for pathologists. The article aims to complement our recent hierarchy of evidence for tumor pathology and glossary of evidence (study) types in tumor pathology. Together, these articles should help any researcher get to grips with the basics of EBM for planning and publishing research in tumor pathology, as well as encourage an improved standard of the reports available to us all in the literature.

A New Hierarchy of Research Evidence for Tumor Pathology: A Delphi Study to Define Levels of Evidence in Tumor Pathology.

The hierarchy of evidence is a fundamental concept in evidence-based medicine, but existing models can be challenging to apply in laboratory-based health care disciplines, such as pathology, where the types of evidence and contexts are significantly different from interventional medicine. This project aimed to define a comprehensive and complementary framework of new levels of evidence for evaluating research in tumor pathology-introducing a novel Hierarchy of Research Evidence for Tumor Pathology collaboratively designed by pathologists with help from epidemiologists, public health professionals, oncologists, and scientists, specifically tailored for use by pathologists-and to aid in the production of the World Health Organization Classification of Tumors (WCT) evidence gap maps. To achieve this, we adopted a modified Delphi approach, encompassing iterative online surveys, expert oversight, and external peer review, to establish the criteria for evidence in tumor pathology, determine the optimal structure for the new hierarchy, and ascertain the levels of confidence for each type of evidence. Over a span of 4 months and 3 survey rounds, we collected 1104 survey responses, culminating in a 3-day hybrid meeting in 2023, where a new hierarchy was unanimously agreed upon. The hierarchy is organized into 5 research theme groupings closely aligned with the subheadings of the WCT, and it consists of 5 levels of evidence-level P1 representing evidence types that merit the greatest level of confidence and level P5 reflecting the greatest risk of bias. For the first time, an international collaboration of pathology experts, supported by the International Agency for Research on Cancer, has successfully united to establish a standardized approach for evaluating evidence in tumor pathology. We intend to implement this novel Hierarchy of Research Evidence for Tumor Pathology to map the available evidence, thereby enriching and informing the WCT effectively.

Improving care for rare genetic neurodevelopmental disorders: A systematic review and critical appraisal of clinical practice guidelines using AGREE II.

PURPOSE: Rare genetic neurodevelopmental disorders associated with intellectual disability require lifelong multidisciplinary care. Clinical practice guidelines may support healthcare professionals in their daily practice, but guideline development for rare conditions can be challenging. In this systematic review, the characteristics and methodological quality of internationally published recommendations for this population are described to provide an overview of current guidelines and inform future efforts of European Reference Network ITHACA (Intellectual disability, TeleHealth, Autism, and Congenital Anomalies). METHODS: MEDLINE, Embase, and Orphanet were systematically searched to identify guidelines for conditions classified as "rare genetic intellectual disability" (ORPHA:183757). Methodological quality was assessed using the Appraisal of Guidelines, Research, and Evaluation II tool. RESULTS: Seventy internationally published guidelines, addressing the diagnosis and/or management of 28 conditions, were included. The methodological rigor of development was highly variable with limited reporting of literature searches and consensus methods. Stakeholder involvement and editorial independence varied as well. Implementation was rarely addressed. CONCLUSION: Comprehensive, high-quality guidelines are lacking for many rare genetic neurodevelopmental disorders. Use and transparent reporting of sound development methodologies, active involvement of affected individuals and families, robust conflict of interest procedures, and attention to implementation are vital for enhancing the impact of clinical practice recommendations.

Reporting of Harms in Randomized Controlled Trials Published in Urology Journals: An Updated Analysis.

PURPOSE: Harms are often overlooked, but important, outcomes of randomized controlled trial reporting. Our goal was to determine if harms reporting has improved in high-impact urology journals. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Randomized controlled trials published in The Journal of Urology®, Urology, European Urology, and BJU International in 2012 and 2020 were analyzed. Each randomized controlled trial was evaluated by 2 authors in a masked-duplicate fashion to evaluate for adherence to harms reporting guidelines recommended by the Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials (CONSORT) group. RESULTS: One hundred and thirty-two published studies met inclusion criteria. Between 2012 and 2020, there was a statistically significant increase in the median number of harms criteria reported between 2012 and 2020 (5.3 vs 7.2; P = .01). Methods criteria demonstrating the greatest improvements included item #3 "which harms were assessed," item #4a "when harm information was collected," and item #4b "methods to attribute harm to intervention." Results sections with the most improvement in reporting include item #6 "reasons for patient withdrawal," item #8a "effect size for harms," and item #8b "stratified serious + minor harms." CONCLUSIONS: Reporting of adverse events in randomized trials published in several top urology journals has demonstrated marked improvement. Studies published in 2020 reported approximately 70% of CONSORT-Harms criteria-an increase of nearly 40% since 2004. While these improvements mark significant change, deficits remain present and should be addressed to provide clinicians with the most complete perspective possible.