GoodReports: developing a website to help health researchers find and use reporting guidelines.

BACKGROUND: Th EQUATOR Network improves the quality and transparency in health research, primarily by promoting awareness and use of reporting guidelines. In 2018, the UK EQUATOR Centre launched GoodReports.org , a website that helps authors find and use reporting guidelines. This paper describes the tool's development so far. We describe user experience and behaviour of using GoodReports.org both inside and outside a journal manuscript submission process. We intend to use our findings to inform future development and testing of the tool. METHODS: We conducted a survey to collect data on user experience of the GoodReports website. We cross-checked a random sample of 100 manuscripts submitted to a partner journal to describe the level of agreement between the tool's checklist recommendation and what we would have recommended. We compared the proportion of authors submitting a completed reporting checklist alongside their manuscripts between groups exposed or not exposed to the GoodReports tool. We also conducted a study comparing completeness of reporting of manuscript text before an author received a reporting guideline recommendation from GoodReports.org with the completeness of the text subsequently submitted to a partner journal. RESULTS: Seventy percent (423/599) of survey respondents rated GoodReports 8 or more out of 10 for usefulness, and 74% (198/267) said they had made changes to their manuscript after using the website. We agreed with the GoodReports reporting guideline recommendation in 84% (72/86) of cases. Of authors who completed the guideline finder questionnaire, 14% (10/69) failed to submit a completed checklist compared to 30% (41/136) who did not use the tool. Of the 69 authors who received a GoodReports reporting guideline recommendation, 20 manuscript pairs could be reviewed before and after use of GoodReports. Five included more information in their methods section after exposure to GoodReports. On average, authors reported 57% of necessary reporting items before completing a checklist on GoodReports.org and 60% after. CONCLUSION: The data suggest that reporting guidance is needed early in the writing process, not at submission stage. We are developing GoodReports by adding more reporting guidelines and by creating editable article templates. We will test whether GoodReports users write more complete study reports in a randomised trial targeting researchers starting to write health research articles.

Ten simple rules for measuring the impact of workshops.

Workshops are used to explore a specific topic, to transfer knowledge, to solve identified problems, or to create something new. In funded research projects and other research endeavours, workshops are the mechanism used to gather the wider project, community, or interested people together around a particular topic. However, natural questions arise: how do we measure the impact of these workshops? Do we know whether they are meeting the goals and objectives we set for them? What indicators should we use? In response to these questions, this paper will outline rules that will improve the measurement of the impact of workshops.

Mechanism of Signalling and Adaptation through the Rhodobacter sphaeroides Cytoplasmic Chemoreceptor Cluster.

Rhodobacter sphaeroides has two chemotaxis clusters, an Escherichia coli-like cluster with membrane-spanning chemoreceptors and a less-understood cytoplasmic cluster. The cytoplasmic CheA is split into CheA4, a kinase, and CheA3, a His-domain phosphorylated by CheA4 and a phosphatase domain, which together phosphorylate and dephosphorylate motor-stopping CheY6. In bacterial two-hybrid analysis, one major cytoplasmic chemoreceptor, TlpT, interacted with CheA4, while the other, TlpC, interacted with CheA3. Both clusters have associated adaptation proteins. Deleting their methyltransferases and methylesterases singly and together removed chemotaxis, but with opposite effects. The cytoplasmic cluster signal overrode the membrane cluster signal. Methylation and demethylation of specific chemoreceptor glutamates controls adaptation. Tandem mass spectroscopy and bioinformatics identified four putative sites on TlpT, three glutamates and a glutamine. Mutating each glutamate to alanine resulted in smooth swimming and loss of chemotaxis, unlike similar mutations in E. coli chemoreceptors. Cells with two mutated glutamates were more stoppy than wild-type and responded and adapted to attractant addition, not removal. Mutating all four sites amplified the effect. Cells were non-motile, began smooth swimming on attractant addition, and rapidly adapted back to non-motile before attractant removal. We propose that TlpT responds and adapts to the cell's metabolic state, generating the steady-state concentration of motor-stopping CheY6~P. Membrane-cluster signalling produces a pulse of CheY3/CheY4~P that displaces CheY6~P and allows flagellar rotation and smooth swimming before both clusters adapt.

Reporting guidelines for oncology research: helping to maximise the impact of your research.

Many reports of health research omit important information needed to assess their methodological robustness and clinical relevance. Without clear and complete reporting, it is not possible to identify flaws or biases, reproduce successful interventions, or use the findings in systematic reviews or meta-analyses. The EQUATOR Network (http://www.equator-network.org/) promotes responsible reporting and the use of reporting guidelines to improve the accuracy, completeness, and transparency of health research. EQUATOR supports researchers by providing online resources and training. EQUATOR Oncology, a project funded by Cancer Research UK, aims to support cancer researchers reporting their research through the provision of online resources. In this article, our objective is to highlight reporting issues related to oncology research publications and to introduce reporting guidelines that are designed to aid high-quality reporting. We describe generic reporting guidelines for the main study types, and explain how these guidelines should and should not be used. We also describe 37 oncology-specific reporting guidelines, covering different clinical areas (e.g., haematology or urology) and sections of the report (e.g., methods or study characteristics); most of these are little-used. We also provide some background information on EQUATOR Oncology, which focuses on addressing the reporting needs of the oncology research community.

Overinterpretation and misreporting of prognostic factor studies in oncology: a systematic review.

BACKGROUND: Cancer prognostic biomarkers have shown disappointing clinical applicability. The objective of this study was to classify and estimate how study results are overinterpreted and misreported in prognostic factor studies in oncology. METHODS: This systematic review focused on 17 oncology journals with an impact factor above 7. PubMed was searched for primary clinical studies published in 2015, evaluating prognostic factors. We developed a classification system, focusing on three domains: misleading reporting (selective, incomplete reporting, misreporting), misleading interpretation (unreliable statistical analysis, spin) and misleading extrapolation of the results (claiming irrelevant clinical applicability, ignoring uncertainty). RESULTS: Our search identified 10,844 articles. The 98 studies included investigated a median of two prognostic factors (Q1-Q3, 1-7). The prognostic factors' effects were selectively and incompletely reported in 35/98 and 24/98 full texts, respectively. Twenty-nine articles used linguistic spin in the form of strong statements. Linguistic spin rejecting non-significant results was found in 34 full-text results and 15 abstract results sections. One in five articles had discussion and/or abstract conclusions that were inconsistent with the study findings. Sixteen reports had discrepancies between their full-text and abstract conclusions. CONCLUSIONS: Our study provides evidence of frequent overinterpretation of findings of prognostic factor assessment in high-impact medical oncology journals.

Novel methods for analysing bacterial tracks reveal persistence in Rhodobacter sphaeroides.

Tracking bacteria using video microscopy is a powerful experimental approach to probe their motile behaviour. The trajectories obtained contain much information relating to the complex patterns of bacterial motility. However, methods for the quantitative analysis of such data are limited. Most swimming bacteria move in approximately straight lines, interspersed with random reorientation phases. It is therefore necessary to segment observed tracks into swimming and reorientation phases to extract useful statistics. We present novel robust analysis tools to discern these two phases in tracks. Our methods comprise a simple and effective protocol for removing spurious tracks from tracking datasets, followed by analysis based on a two-state hidden Markov model, taking advantage of the availability of mutant strains that exhibit swimming-only or reorientating-only motion to generate an empirical prior distribution. Using simulated tracks with varying levels of added noise, we validate our methods and compare them with an existing heuristic method. To our knowledge this is the first example of a systematic assessment of analysis methods in this field. The new methods are substantially more robust to noise and introduce less systematic bias than the heuristic method. We apply our methods to tracks obtained from the bacterial species Rhodobacter sphaeroides and Escherichia coli. Our results demonstrate that R. sphaeroides exhibits persistence over the course of a tumbling event, which is a novel result with important implications in the study of this and similar species.

Open science practices need substantial improvement in prognostic model studies in oncology using machine learning.

OBJECTIVE: To describe the frequency of open science practices in a contemporary sample of studies developing prognostic models using machine learning methods in the field of oncology. STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING: We conducted a systematic review, searching the MEDLINE database between December 1, 2022, and December 31, 2022, for studies developing a multivariable prognostic model using machine learning methods (as defined by the authors) in oncology. Two authors independently screened records and extracted open science practices. RESULTS: We identified 46 publications describing the development of a multivariable prognostic model. The adoption of open science principles was poor. Only one study reported availability of a study protocol, and only one study was registered. Funding statements and conflicts of interest statements were common. Thirty-five studies (76%) provided data sharing statements, with 21 (46%) indicating data were available on request to the authors and seven declaring data sharing was not applicable. Two studies (4%) shared data. Only 12 studies (26%) provided code sharing statements, including 2 (4%) that indicated the code was available on request to the authors. Only 11 studies (24%) provided sufficient information to allow their model to be used in practice. The use of reporting guidelines was rare: eight studies (18%) mentioning using a reporting guideline, with 4 (10%) using the Transparent Reporting of a Multivariable Prediction Model for Individual Prognosis Or Diagnosis statement, 1 (2%) using Minimum Information About Clinical Artificial Intelligence Modeling and Consolidated Standards Of Reporting Trials-Artificial Intelligence, 1 (2%) using Strengthening The Reporting Of Observational Studies In Epidemiology, 1 (2%) using Standards for Reporting Diagnostic Accuracy Studies, and 1 (2%) using Transparent Reporting of Evaluations with Nonrandomized Designs. CONCLUSION: The adoption of open science principles in oncology studies developing prognostic models using machine learning methods is poor. Guidance and an increased awareness of benefits and best practices of open science are needed for prediction research in oncology.

Methods used to develop the SPIRIT 2024 and CONSORT 2024 Statements.

OBJECTIVES: To describe, and explain the rationale for, the methods used and decisions made during development of the updated SPIRIT 2024 and CONSORT 2024 reporting guidelines. METHODS: We developed SPIRIT 2024 and CONSORT 2024 together to facilitate harmonization of the two guidelines, and incorporated content from key extensions. We conducted a scoping review of comments suggesting changes to SPIRIT 2013 and CONSORT 2010, and compiled a list of other possible revisions based on existing SPIRIT and CONSORT extensions, other reporting guidelines, and personal communications. From this, we generated a list of potential modifications or additions to SPIRIT and CONSORT, which we presented to stakeholders for feedback in an international online Delphi survey. The Delphi survey results were discussed at an online expert consensus meeting attended by 30 invited international participants. We then drafted the updated SPIRIT and CONSORT checklists and revised them based on further feedback from meeting attendees. RESULTS: We compiled 83 suggestions for revisions or additions to SPIRIT and/or CONSORT from the scoping review and 85 from other sources, from which we generated 33 potential changes to SPIRIT (n = 5) or CONSORT (n = 28). Of 463 participants invited to take part in the Delphi survey, 317 (68%) responded to Round 1, 303 (65%) to Round 2 and 290 (63%) to Round 3. Two additional potential checklist changes were added to the Delphi survey based on Round 1 comments. Overall, 14/35 (SPIRIT n = 0; CONSORT n = 14) proposed changes reached the predefined consensus threshold (≥80% agreement), and participants provided 3580 free-text comments. The consensus meeting participants agreed with implementing 11/14 of the proposed changes that reached consensus in the Delphi and supported implementing a further 4/21 changes (SPIRIT n = 2; CONSORT n = 2) that had not reached the Delphi threshold. They also recommended further changes to refine key concepts and for clarity. CONCLUSION: The forthcoming SPIRIT 2024 and CONSORT 2024 Statements will provide updated, harmonized guidance for reporting randomized controlled trial protocols and results, respectively. The simultaneous development of the SPIRIT and CONSORT checklists has been informed by current empirical evidence and extensive input from stakeholders. We hope that this report of the methods used will be helpful for developers of future reporting guidelines.

Reporting guidelines used varying methodology to develop recommendations.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: We investigated the developing methods of reporting guidelines in the EQUATOR (Enhancing the QUAlity and Transparency Of health Research) Network's database. METHODS: In October 2018, we screened all records and excluded those not describing reporting guidelines from further investigation. Twelve researchers performed duplicate data extraction on bibliometrics, scope, development methods, presentation, and dissemination of all publications. Descriptive statistics were used to summarize the findings. RESULTS: Of the 405 screened records, 262 described a reporting guidelines development. The number of reporting guidelines increased over the past 3 decades, from 5 in the 1990s and 63 in the 2000s to 157 in the 2010s. Development groups included 2-151 people. Literature appraisal was performed during the development of 56% of the reporting guidelines; 33% used surveys to gather external opinion on items to report; and 42% piloted or sought external feedback on their recommendations. Examples of good reporting for all reporting items were presented in 30% of the reporting guidelines. Eighteen percent of the reviewed publications included some level of spin. CONCLUSION: Reporting guidelines have been developed with varying methodology. Reporting guideline developers should use existing guidance and take an evidence-based approach, rather than base their recommendations on expert opinion of limited groups of individuals.

Completeness of Reporting in Diet- and Nutrition-Related Randomized Controlled Trials and Systematic Reviews With Meta-Analysis: Protocol for 2 Independent Meta-Research Studies.

BACKGROUND: Journal articles describing randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and systematic reviews with meta-analysis of RCTs are not optimally reported and often miss crucial details. This poor reporting makes assessing these studies' risk of bias or reproducing their results difficult. However, the reporting quality of diet- and nutrition-related RCTs and meta-analyses has not been explored. OBJECTIVE: We aimed to assess the reporting completeness and identify the main reporting limitations of diet- and nutrition-related RCTs and meta-analyses of RCTs, estimate the frequency of reproducible research practices among these RCTs, and estimate the frequency of distorted presentation or spin among these meta-analyses. METHODS: Two independent meta-research studies will be conducted using articles published in PubMed-indexed journals. The first will include a sample of diet- and nutrition-related RCTs; the second will include a sample of systematic reviews with meta-analysis of diet- and nutrition-related RCTs. A validated search strategy will be used to identify RCTs of nutritional interventions and an adapted strategy to identify meta-analyses in PubMed. We will search for RCTs and meta-analyses indexed in 1 calendar year and randomly select 100 RCTs (June 2021 to June 2022) and 100 meta-analyses (July 2021 to July 2022). Two reviewers will independently screen the titles and abstracts of records yielded by the searches, then read the full texts to confirm their eligibility. The general features of these published RCTs and meta-analyses will be extracted into a research electronic data capture database (REDCap; Vanderbilt University). The completeness of reporting of each RCT will be assessed using the items in the CONSORT (Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials), its extensions, and the TIDieR (Template for Intervention Description and Replication) statements. Information about practices that promote research transparency and reproducibility, such as the publication of protocols and statistical analysis plans will be collected. There will be an assessment of the completeness of reporting of each meta-analysis using the items in the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analysis (PRISMA) statement and collection of information about spin in the abstracts and full-texts. The results will be presented as descriptive statistics in diagrams or tables. These 2 meta-research studies are registered in the Open Science Framework. RESULTS: The literature search for the first meta-research retrieved 20,030 records and 2182 were potentially eligible. The literature search for the second meta-research retrieved 10,918 records and 850 were potentially eligible. Among them, random samples of 100 RCTs and 100 meta-analyses were selected for data extraction. Data extraction is currently in progress, and completion is expected by the beginning of 2023. CONCLUSIONS: Our meta-research studies will summarize the main limitation on reporting completeness of nutrition- or diet-related RCTs and meta-analyses and provide comprehensive information regarding the particularities in the reporting of intervention studies in the nutrition field. INTERNATIONAL REGISTERED REPORT IDENTIFIER (IRRID): DERR1-10.2196/43537.

Protocol for a meta-research study of protocols for diet or nutrition-related trials published in indexed journals: general aspects of study design, rationale and reporting limitations.

INTRODUCTION: The Standard Protocol Items: Recommendations for Interventional Trials (SPIRIT) reporting guideline establishes a minimum set of items to be reported in any randomised controlled trial (RCT) protocol. The Template for Intervention Description and Replication (TIDieR) reporting guideline was developed to improve the reporting of interventions in RCT protocols and results papers. Reporting completeness in protocols of diet or nutrition-related RCTs has not been systematically investigated. We aim to identify published protocols of diet or nutrition-related RCTs, assess their reporting completeness and identify the main reporting limitations remaining in this field. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: We will conduct a meta-research study of RCT protocols published in journals indexed in at least one of six selected databases between 2012 and 2022. We have run a search in PubMed, Embase, CINAHL, Web of Science, PsycINFO and Global Health using a search strategy designed to identify protocols of diet or nutrition-related RCTs. Two reviewers will independently screen the titles and abstracts of records yielded by the search in Rayyan. The full texts will then be read to confirm protocol eligibility. We will collect general study features (publication information, types of participants, interventions, comparators, outcomes and study design) of all eligible published protocols in this contemporary sample. We will assess reporting completeness in a randomly selected sample of them and identify their main reporting limitations. We will compare this subsample with the items in the SPIRIT and TIDieR statements. For all data collection, we will use data extraction forms in REDCap. This protocol is registered on the Open Science Framework (DOI: 10.17605/OSF.IO/YWEVS). ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: This study will undertake a secondary analysis of published data and does not require ethical approval. The results will be disseminated through journals and conferences targeting stakeholders involved in nutrition research.

Inducible-expression plasmid for Rhodobacter sphaeroides and Paracoccus denitrificans.

We have developed a stable isopropyl-beta-d-thiogalactopyranoside (IPTG)-inducible-expression plasmid, pIND4, which allows graduated levels of protein expression in the alphaproteobacteria Rhodobacter sphaeroides and Paracoccus denitrificans. pIND4 confers kanamycin resistance and combines the stable replicon of pMG160 with the lacI(q) gene from pYanni3 and the lac promoter, P(A1/04/03), from pJBA24.

Effect of lapatinib on oral digoxin absorption in patients.

The potential for an interaction between lapatinib and absorption of the P-glycoprotein (ABCB1) substrate digoxin at a therapeutic dose in breast cancer patients was characterized. Seventeen women with HER2-positive metastatic breast cancer received a single oral 0.5-mg dose of digoxin on days 1 and 9 and oral lapatinib 1500 mg once daily on days 2 through 9. Digoxin pharmacokinetic parameters were determined on day 1 (digoxin administration alone) and on day 9 (coadministration of lapatinib and digoxin), and parameters were compared to determine the effects of lapatinib on digoxin absorption. Concomitant medications that could affect ABCB1 were accounted for. Lapatinib 1500 mg/day increased digoxin absorption approximately 80%, implicating lapatinib inhibition of intestinal ABCB1-mediated efflux. In summary, coadministration of lapatinib with narrow therapeutic index drugs that are substrates of ABCB1 should be undertaken with caution and dose adjustment should be considered.

Diabetes in non-Hispanic white youth: prevalence, incidence, and clinical characteristics: the SEARCH for Diabetes in Youth Study.

OBJECTIVE: To investigate the incidence, prevalence, and clinical characteristics of diabetes among U.S. non-Hispanic white (NHW) youth. RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS: Data from the SEARCH for Diabetes in Youth Study (SEARCH study), a multicenter study of diabetes among youth aged 0-19 years, were examined. Incidence rates were calculated per 100,000 person-years across 4 incident years (2002-2005), and prevalence in 2001 was calculated per 1,000 youths. Information obtained by questionnaire, physical examination, and blood and urine collection was analyzed to describe the characteristics of youth who completed an in-person visit. RESULTS: The prevalence of type 1 diabetes (at ages 0-19 years) was 2.00/1,000, which was similar for male (2.02/1,000) and female (1.97/1,000) subjects. The incidence of type 1 diabetes was 23.6/100,000, slightly higher for male compared with female subjects (24.5 vs. 22.7 per 100,000, respectively, P = 0.04). Incidence rates of type 1 diabetes among youth aged 0-14 years in the SEARCH study are higher than all previously reported U.S. studies and many European studies. Few cases of type 2 diabetes in youth aged <10 years were found. The prevalence of type 2 diabetes (at ages 10-19 years) was 0.18/1,000, which is significantly higher for female compared with male subjects (0.22 vs. 0.15 per 1,000, P = 0.01). Incidence of type 2 diabetes was 3.7/100,000, with similar rates for female and male subjects (3.9 vs. 3.4 per 1,000, respectively, P = 0.3). High levels of abnormal cardiometabolic and behavioral risk factor profiles were common among youth with both type 1 and type 2 diabetes. For example, within each of four age-groups for youth with type 1 diabetes and two age-groups for youth with type 2 diabetes, >40% had elevated LDL cholesterol, and <3% of youth aged >10 years met current recommendations for intake of saturated fat. Among youth aged >or=15 years, 18% with type 1 and 26% with type 2 diabetes were current smokers. CONCLUSIONS: The SEARCH study is one of the most comprehensive studies of diabetes in NHW youth. The incidence of type 1 diabetes in NHW youth in the U.S. is one of the highest in the world. While type 2 diabetes is still relatively rare, rates are several-fold higher than those reported by European countries. We believe efforts directed at improving the cardiometabolic and behavioral risk factor profiles in this population are warranted.

Diabetes in African American youth: prevalence, incidence, and clinical characteristics: the SEARCH for Diabetes in Youth Study.

OBJECTIVE: To report the prevalence and incidence of type 1 and type 2 diabetes among African American youth and to describe demographic, clinical, and behavioral characteristics. RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS: Data from the SEARCH for Diabetes in Youth Study, a population-based, multicenter observational study of youth with clinically diagnosed diabetes aged 0-19 years, were used to estimate the prevalence for calendar year 2001 (692 cases) and incidence based on 748 African American case subjects diagnosed in 2002-2005. Characteristics of these youth were obtained during a research visit for 436 African American youth with type 1 diabetes and 212 African American youth with type 2 diabetes. RESULTS: Among African American youth aged 0-9 years, prevalence (per 1,000) of type 1 diabetes was 0.57 (95% CI 0.47-0.69) and for those aged 10-19 years 2.04 (1.85-2.26). Among African American youth aged 0-9 years, annual type 1 diabetes incidence (per 100,000) was 15.7 (13.7-17.9) and for those aged 10-19 years 15.7 (13.8-17.8). A1C was >or=9.5% among 50% of youth with type 1 diabetes aged >or=15 years. Across age-groups and sex, 44.7% of African American youth with type 1 diabetes were overweight or obese. Among African American youth aged 10-19 years, prevalence (per 1,000) of type 2 diabetes was 1.06 (0.93-1.22) and annual incidence (per 100,000) was 19.0 (16.9-21.3). About 60% of African American youth with type 2 diabetes had an annual household income of <$25,000. Among those aged >or=15 years, 27.5% had an A1C >or=9.5%, 22.5% had high blood pressure, and, across subgroups of age and sex, >90% were overweight or obese. CONCLUSIONS: Type 1 diabetes presents a serious burden among African American youth aged <10 years, and African American adolescents are impacted substantially by both type 1 and type 2 diabetes.

Diabetes in Hispanic American youth: prevalence, incidence, demographics, and clinical characteristics: the SEARCH for Diabetes in Youth Study.

OBJECTIVE: To report the 2001 prevalence and 2002-2005 incidence of type 1 and type 2 diabetes in Hispanic American youth and to describe the demographic, clinical, and behavioral characteristics of these youth. RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS: Data from the SEARCH for Diabetes in Youth Study, a population-based multicenter observational study of youth aged 0-19 years with physician-diagnosed diabetes, were used to estimate the prevalence and incidence of type 1 and type 2 diabetes. Information obtained by questionnaire, physical examination, and blood and urine collection was analyzed to describe the characteristics of youth who completed a study visit. RESULTS: Among Hispanic American youth, type 1 diabetes was more prevalent than type 2 diabetes, including in youth aged 10-19 years. There were no significant sex differences in type 1 or type 2 diabetes prevalence. The incidence of type 2 diabetes for female subjects aged 10-14 years was twice that of male subjects (P < 0.005), while among youth aged 15-19 years the incidence of type 2 diabetes exceeded that of type 1 diabetes for female subjects (P < 0.05) but not for male subjects. Poor glycemic control, defined as A1C >or=9.5%, as well as high LDL cholesterol and triglycerides were common among youth aged >or=15 years with either type of diabetes. Forty-four percent of youth with type 1 diabetes were overweight or obese. CONCLUSIONS: Factors such as poor glycemic control, elevated lipids, and a high prevalence of overweight and obesity may put Hispanic youth with type 1 and type 2 diabetes at risk for future diabetes-related complications.

Type 1 and Type 2 diabetes in Asian and Pacific Islander U.S. youth: the SEARCH for Diabetes in Youth Study.

OBJECTIVE: Given limited reports on diabetes among U.S. Asian and Pacific Islander youth, we describe the clinical characteristics, incidence, and prevalence of diabetes among Asian, Pacific Islander, and mixed Asian-Pacific Islander youth. RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS: Data were collected from 245 Asian, Pacific Islander, and Asian-Pacific Islander participants in the SEARCH for Diabetes in Youth Study, a population-based study of diabetes in youth (aged <20 years). Additionally, we estimated the incidence and prevalence of type 1 and type 2 diabetes for Asian, Pacific Islander, and Asian-Pacific Islander youth combined. RESULTS: Most participants with type 2 diabetes were obese (range Asian 71% to Pacific Islander 100%) with mean BMI >33 kg/m(2). In those with type 1 diabetes, Pacific Islanders were more likely to be obese, with a mean BMI of 26 vs. 20 kg/m(2) for Asian and Asian-Pacific Islander youth (P < 0.0001). The incidence of type 1 diabetes for youth aged 0-9 years was 6.4 per 100,000 person-years and 7.4 per 100,000 person-years for youth aged 10-19 years. The incidence of type 2 diabetes was 12.1 per 100,000 person-years for youth aged 10-19 years. CONCLUSIONS: While Asian and Asian-Pacific Islanders with type 1 and type 2 diabetes had lower mean BMIs than Pacific Islanders, all Asian, Pacific Islander, and Asian-Pacific Islanders with type 2 diabetes had mean BMIs above adult ethnicity-specific definitions of obesity. While the majority of Asian, Pacific Islander, and Asian-Pacific Islander youth had type 1 diabetes, older Asian, Pacific Islander, and Asian-Pacific Islander youth (aged 10-19 years) have an incidence of type 2 diabetes almost double that of type 1 diabetes. Public health efforts to prevent type 2 diabetes and obesity in Asian, Pacific Islander, and Asian-Pacific Islander adolescents are needed.