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.

Disparities in seasonal influenza vaccine uptake and language preference among Hispanic US adults: an analysis of the 2017-2020 BRFSS.

CONTEXT: Influenza-related hospitalization and mortality disproportionately affects the Hispanic population in the United States. Among other medical conditions in addition to influenza, Spanish-preferring Hispanics may be more affected than those who speak English. OBJECTIVES: The purpose of this study was to compare seasonal influenza vaccine uptake rates between Spanish-and English-preferring Hispanic US adults from 2017 to 2020. METHODS: For this cross-sectional study, we extracted data from the Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System (BRFSS) from the 2017 through 2020 cycles. We calculated the population prevalence of individuals getting influenza vaccines per year, and among subpopulations based on language spoken, age, and sex. We then utilized chi-squared tests of independence to discover possible associations between these subpopulations per year. An alpha level of 0.05 was utilized in this study. Respondents were included if they identified as Hispanic, responded to questions regarding influenza vaccine uptake, and were grouped by the language of the survey returned, age, and sex. RESULTS: Our results show that self-identified Hispanic individuals who were English-preferring had greater seasonal influenza vaccine uptake rates in the latter 2 years of our study for both sexes in the younger age group. Hispanic individuals over the age of 65 years (n=11,328) were much more likely to have received an influenza vaccine compared to younger individuals (n=34,109). In 2018, Spanish-preferring women over age 65 years (n=677) were more likely to have received a vaccine over English-preferring women (n=772). CONCLUSIONS: Our findings showed that disparities exist between English- and Spanish-preferring Hispanic individuals and age groups. Language barriers may play a role in receiving influenza vaccines. The incorporation of medical translators may assist in reducing these disparities in influenza-related healthcare expenses, overall morbidity, and mortality.

Public Interest in Myocarditis during the SARS-CoV-2 Pandemic.

OBJECTIVE: Public interest in the severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) vaccines has been rising with regard to associated myocarditis. Thus, the objective of our study was to assess trends in public interest in myocarditis during the course of the pandemic and the SARS-CoV-2 vaccine rollout in the United States. METHODS: We conducted a longitudinal assessment of public interest in myocarditis, and its association with actual coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) -related myocarditis during the first wave of the pandemic and SARS-CoV-2 vaccine-related myocarditis following vaccine rollout. To complete this objective, we used data from 3 sources: a report from the Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report, the Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting database, and from Google Trends. RESULTS: Results show that Relative Search Interest (RSI) was low before and during the initial phase of the pandemic and peaked in April 2021, during the initial vaccine push. The ratio of myocarditis related to the SARS-CoV-2 vaccines was considerably lower than the ratio of myocarditis from natural infection. CONCLUSIONS: Search interest in myocarditis was low until SARS-CoV-2 vaccines were rolled out, in which media coverage intensely focused on a relatively small number of cases. This study highlights both the benefits of COVID-19 vaccine uptake and the impact of the media on public interest.