Safety of psychotropic medications in pregnancy: an umbrella review.

Weighing risks and benefits of the use of psychotropic medications during pregnancy remains a challenge worldwide. We systematically assessed the strength of associations between psychotropic medication use in pregnant people with mental disorders and various adverse health outcomes in both pregnant people and foetuses. Systematic reviews with meta-analyses of observational studies investigating the association between exposure to psychotropic medication in pregnancy and any adverse health outcomes were included. Credibility was graded into convincing, highly suggestive, suggestive, weak or not significant. Quality of the meta-analyses and of individual studies were assessed with A Measurement Tool to Assess Systematic Reviews 2 (AMSTAR 2) the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale (NOS), respectively. We considered 21 meta-analyses encompassing 17,290,755 participants (AMSTAR 2 high = 1, low = 12, or critically low = 8). Evidence was suggestive for: (1) preterm birth in pregnant people with either any mental disorder (equivalent odds ratio 1.62 (95% confidence interval 1.24-2.12) or depression (1.65 [1.34-2.02]) receiving antidepressants during any trimester of pregnancy; (2) small for gestational age for pregnant people with depression receiving a SSRI during any trimester of pregnancy (1.50 [1.19-1.90]); and (3) major congenital malformation (1.24 [1.09-1.40]) or cardiac malformations (1.28 [1.11-1.47]) in babies for pregnant people with depression or anxiety receiving paroxetine during first trimester of pregnancy. Additional associations were supported by weak evidence, or were not statistically significant. This umbrella review found no convincing or highly suggestive level of evidence of adverse health outcomes associated with psychotropic medication use in pregnant people with mental disorders.

Is There Evidence of P-Hacking in Imaging Research?

BACKGROUND: P-hacking, the tendency to run selective analyses until they become significant, is prevalent in many scientific disciplines. PURPOSE: This study aims to assess if p-hacking exists in imaging research. METHODS: Protocol, data, and code available here https://osf.io/xz9ku/?view_only=a9f7c2d841684cb7a3616f567db273fa. We searched imaging journals Ovid MEDLINE from 1972 to 2021. Text mining using Python script was used to collect metadata: journal, publication year, title, abstract, and P-values from abstracts. One P-value was randomly sampled per abstract. We assessed for evidence of p-hacking using a p-curve, by evaluating for a concentration of P-values just below .05. We conducted a one-tailed binomial test (α = .05 level of significance) to assess whether there were more P-values falling in the upper range (e.g., .045 < P < .05) than in the lower range (e.g., .04 < P < .045). To assess variation in results introduced by our random sampling of a single P-value per abstract, we repeated the random sampling process 1000 times and pooled results across the samples. Analysis was done (divided into 10-year periods) to determine if p-hacking practices evolved over time. RESULTS: Our search of 136 journals identified 967,981 abstracts. Text mining identified 293,687 P-values, and a total of 4105 randomly sampled P-values were included in the p-hacking analysis. The number of journals and abstracts that were included in the analysis as a fraction and percentage of the total number was, respectively, 108/136 (80%) and 4105/967,981 (.4%). P-values did not concentrate just under .05; in fact, there were more P-values falling in the lower range (e.g., .04 < P < .045) than falling just below .05 (e.g., .045 < P < .05), indicating lack of evidence for p-hacking. Time trend analysis did not identify p-hacking in any of the five 10-year periods. CONCLUSION: We did not identify evidence of p-hacking in abstracts published in over 100 imaging journals since 1972. These analyses cannot detect all forms of p-hacking, and other forms of bias may exist in imaging research such as publication bias and selective outcome reporting.

Evaluating the Impact of Peer Review on the Completeness of Reporting in Imaging Diagnostic Test Accuracy Research.

BACKGROUND: Despite the nearly ubiquitous reported use of peer review among reputable medical journals, there is limited evidence to support the use of peer review to improve the quality of biomedical research and in particular, imaging diagnostic test accuracy (DTA) research. PURPOSE: To evaluate whether peer review of DTA studies published by imaging journals is associated with changes in completeness of reporting, transparency for risk of bias assessment, and spin. STUDY TYPE: Retrospective cross-sectional study. STUDY SAMPLE: Cross-sectional study of articles published in Journal of Magnetic Resonance Imaging (JMRI), Canadian Association of Radiologists Journal (CARJ), and European Radiology (EuRad) before March 31, 2020. ASSESSMENT: Initial submitted and final versions of manuscripts were evaluated for completeness of reporting using the Standards for Reporting Diagnostic Accuracy Studies (STARD) 2015 and STARD for Abstracts guidelines, transparency of reporting for risk of bias assessment based on Quality Assessment of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies 2 (QUADAS-2), and actual and potential spin using modified published criteria. STATISTICAL TESTS: Two-tailed paired t-tests and paired Wilcoxon signed-rank tests were used for comparisons. A P value <0.05 was considered to be statistically significant. RESULTS: We included 84 diagnostic accuracy studies accepted by three journals between 2014 and 2020 (JMRI = 30, CARJ = 23, and EuRad = 31) of the 692 which were screened. Completeness of reporting according to STARD 2015 increased significantly between initial submissions and final accepted versions (average reported items: 16.67 vs. 17.47, change of 0.80 [95% confidence interval 0.25-1.17]). No significant difference was found for the reporting of STARD for Abstracts (5.28 vs. 5.25, change of -0.03 [-0.15 to 0.11], P = 0.74), QUADAS-2 (6.08 vs. 6.11, change of 0.03 [-1.00 to 0.50], P = 0.92), actual "spin" (2.36 vs. 2.40, change of 0.04 [0.00 to 1.00], P = 0.39) or potential "spin" (2.93 vs. 2.81, change of -0.12 [-1.00 to 0.00], P = 0.23) practices. CONCLUSION: Peer review is associated with a marginal improvement in completeness of reporting in published imaging DTA studies, but not with improvement in transparency for risk of bias assessment or reduction in spin. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: 3 TECHNICAL EFFICACY STAGE: 1.

Association of Accuracy, Conclusions, and Reporting Completeness With Acceptance by Radiology Conferences and Journals.

BACKGROUND: Preferential publication of studies with positive findings can lead to overestimation of diagnostic test accuracy (i.e. publication bias). Understanding the contribution of the editorial process to publication bias could inform interventions to optimize the evidence guiding clinical decisions. PURPOSE/HYPOTHESIS: To evaluate whether accuracy estimates, abstract conclusion positivity, and completeness of abstract reporting are associated with acceptance to radiology conferences and journals. STUDY TYPE: Meta-research. POPULATION: Abstracts submitted to radiology conferences (European Society of Gastrointestinal and Abdominal Radiology (ESGAR) and International Society for Magnetic Resonance in Medicine (ISMRM)) from 2008 to 2018 and manuscripts submitted to radiology journals (Radiology, Journal of Magnetic Resonance Imaging [JMRI]) from 2017 to 2018. Primary clinical studies evaluating sensitivity and specificity of a diagnostic imaging test in humans with available editorial decisions were included. ASSESSMENT: Primary variables (Youden's index [YI > 0.8 vs. <0.8], abstract conclusion positivity [positive vs. neutral/negative], number of reported items on the Standards for Reporting of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies [STARD] for Abstract guideline) and confounding variables (prospective vs. retrospective/unreported, sample size, study duration, interobserver agreement assessment, subspecialty, modality) were extracted. STATISTICAL TESTS: Multivariable logistic regression to obtain adjusted odds ratio (OR) as a measure of the association between the primary variables and acceptance by radiology conferences and journals; 95% confidence intervals (CIs) and P-values were obtained; the threshold for statistical significance was P < 0.05. RESULTS: A total of 1000 conference abstracts (500 ESGAR and 500 ISMRM) and 1000 journal manuscripts (505 Radiology and 495 JMRI) were included. Conference abstract acceptance was not significantly associated with YI (adjusted OR = 0.97 for YI > 0.8; CI = 0.70-1.35), conclusion positivity (OR = 1.21 for positive conclusions; CI = 0.75-1.90) or STARD for Abstracts adherence (OR = 0.96 per unit increase in reported items; CI = 0.82-1.18). Manuscripts with positive abstract conclusions were less likely to be accepted by radiology journals (OR = 0.45; CI = 0.24-0.86), while YI (OR = 0.85; CI = 0.56-1.29) and STARD for Abstracts adherence (OR = 1.06; CI = 0.87-1.30) showed no significant association. Positive conclusions were present in 86.7% of submitted conference abstracts and 90.2% of journal manuscripts. DATA CONCLUSION: Diagnostic test accuracy studies with positive findings were not preferentially accepted by the evaluated radiology conferences or journals. EVIDENCE LEVEL: 3 TECHNICAL EFFICACY: Stage 2.

Thoracic imaging tests for the diagnosis of COVID-19.

BACKGROUND: Our March 2021 edition of this review showed thoracic imaging computed tomography (CT) to be sensitive and moderately specific in diagnosing COVID-19 pneumonia. This new edition is an update of the review. OBJECTIVES: Our objectives were to evaluate the diagnostic accuracy of thoracic imaging in people with suspected COVID-19; assess the rate of positive imaging in people who had an initial reverse transcriptase polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR) negative result and a positive RT-PCR result on follow-up; and evaluate the accuracy of thoracic imaging for screening COVID-19 in asymptomatic individuals. The secondary objective was to assess threshold effects of index test positivity on accuracy. SEARCH METHODS: We searched the COVID-19 Living Evidence Database from the University of Bern, the Cochrane COVID-19 Study Register, The Stephen B. Thacker CDC Library, and repositories of COVID-19 publications through to 17 February 2021. We did not apply any language restrictions. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included diagnostic accuracy studies of all designs, except for case-control, that recruited participants of any age group suspected to have COVID-19. Studies had to assess chest CT, chest X-ray, or ultrasound of the lungs for the diagnosis of COVID-19, use a reference standard that included RT-PCR, and report estimates of test accuracy or provide data from which we could compute estimates. We excluded studies that used imaging as part of the reference standard and studies that excluded participants with normal index test results. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: The review authors independently and in duplicate screened articles, extracted data and assessed risk of bias and applicability concerns using QUADAS-2. We presented sensitivity and specificity per study on paired forest plots, and summarized pooled estimates in tables. We used a bivariate meta-analysis model where appropriate. MAIN RESULTS: We included 98 studies in this review. Of these, 94 were included for evaluating the diagnostic accuracy of thoracic imaging in the evaluation of people with suspected COVID-19. Eight studies were included for assessing the rate of positive imaging in individuals with initial RT-PCR negative results and positive RT-PCR results on follow-up, and 10 studies were included for evaluating the accuracy of thoracic imaging for imagining asymptomatic individuals. For all 98 included studies, risk of bias was high or unclear in 52 (53%) studies with respect to participant selection, in 64 (65%) studies with respect to reference standard, in 46 (47%) studies with respect to index test, and in 48 (49%) studies with respect to flow and timing. Concerns about the applicability of the evidence to: participants were high or unclear in eight (8%) studies; index test were high or unclear in seven (7%) studies; and reference standard were high or unclear in seven (7%) studies. Imaging in people with suspected COVID-19 We included 94 studies. Eighty-seven studies evaluated one imaging modality, and seven studies evaluated two imaging modalities. All studies used RT-PCR alone or in combination with other criteria (for example, clinical signs and symptoms, positive contacts) as the reference standard for the diagnosis of COVID-19. For chest CT (69 studies, 28285 participants, 14,342 (51%) cases), sensitivities ranged from 45% to 100%, and specificities from 10% to 99%. The pooled sensitivity of chest CT was 86.9% (95% confidence interval (CI) 83.6 to 89.6), and pooled specificity was 78.3% (95% CI 73.7 to 82.3). Definition for index test positivity was a source of heterogeneity for sensitivity, but not specificity. Reference standard was not a source of heterogeneity. For chest X-ray (17 studies, 8529 participants, 5303 (62%) cases), the sensitivity ranged from 44% to 94% and specificity from 24 to 93%. The pooled sensitivity of chest X-ray was 73.1% (95% CI 64. to -80.5), and pooled specificity was 73.3% (95% CI 61.9 to 82.2). Definition for index test positivity was not found to be a source of heterogeneity. Definition for index test positivity and reference standard were not found to be sources of heterogeneity. For ultrasound of the lungs (15 studies, 2410 participants, 1158 (48%) cases), the sensitivity ranged from 73% to 94% and the specificity ranged from 21% to 98%. The pooled sensitivity of ultrasound was 88.9% (95% CI 84.9 to 92.0), and the pooled specificity was 72.2% (95% CI 58.8 to 82.5). Definition for index test positivity and reference standard were not found to be sources of heterogeneity. Indirect comparisons of modalities evaluated across all 94 studies indicated that chest CT and ultrasound gave higher sensitivity estimates than X-ray (P = 0.0003 and P = 0.001, respectively). Chest CT and ultrasound gave similar sensitivities (P=0.42). All modalities had similar specificities (CT versus X-ray P = 0.36; CT versus ultrasound P = 0.32; X-ray versus ultrasound P = 0.89). Imaging in PCR-negative people who subsequently became positive For rate of positive imaging in individuals with initial RT-PCR negative results, we included 8 studies (7 CT, 1 ultrasound) with a total of 198 participants suspected of having COVID-19, all of whom had a final diagnosis of COVID-19. Most studies (7/8) evaluated CT. Of 177 participants with initially negative RT-PCR who had positive RT-PCR results on follow-up testing, 75.8% (95% CI 45.3 to 92.2) had positive CT findings. Imaging in asymptomatic PCR-positive people For imaging asymptomatic individuals, we included 10 studies (7 CT, 1 X-ray, 2 ultrasound) with a total of 3548 asymptomatic participants, of whom 364 (10%) had a final diagnosis of COVID-19. For chest CT (7 studies, 3134 participants, 315 (10%) cases), the pooled sensitivity was 55.7% (95% CI 35.4 to 74.3) and the pooled specificity was 91.1% (95% CI 82.6 to 95.7). AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Chest CT and ultrasound of the lungs are sensitive and moderately specific in diagnosing COVID-19. Chest X-ray is moderately sensitive and moderately specific in diagnosing COVID-19. Thus, chest CT and ultrasound may have more utility for ruling out COVID-19 than for differentiating SARS-CoV-2 infection from other causes of respiratory illness. The uncertainty resulting from high or unclear risk of bias and the heterogeneity of included studies limit our ability to confidently draw conclusions based on our results.

Tweeting Bias in Diagnostic Test Accuracy Research: Does Title or Conclusion Positivity Influence Dissemination?

PURPOSE: To examine if tweeting bias exists within imaging literature by determining if diagnostic test accuracy (DTA) studies with positive titles or conclusions are tweeted more than non-positive studies. METHODS: DTA studies published between October 2011 to April 2016 were included. Positivity of titles and conclusions were assessed independently and in duplicate, with disagreements resolved by consensus. A negative binomial regression analysis controlling for confounding variables was performed to assess the relationship between title or conclusion positivity and tweets an article received in the 100 days post-publication. RESULTS: 354 DTA studies were included. Twenty-four (7%) titles and 300 (85%) conclusions were positive (or positive with qualifier); 1 (0.3%) title and 23 (7%) conclusions were negative; and 329 (93%) titles and 26 (7%) conclusions were neutral. Studies with positive, negative, and neutral titles received a mean of 0.38, 0.00, and 0.45 tweets per study; while those with positive, negative, and neutral conclusions received a mean of 0.44, 0.61, and 0.38 tweets per study. Regression coefficients were -0.05 (SE 0.46) for positive relative to non-positive titles, and -0.09 (SE 0.31) for positive relative to non-positive conclusions. The positivity of the title (P = 0.91) or conclusion (P = 0.76) was not significantly associated with the number of tweets an article received. CONCLUSIONS: The positivity of the title or conclusion for DTA studies does not influence the amount of tweets it receives suggesting that tweet bias is not present among imaging diagnostic accuracy studies. Study protocol available at https://osf.io/hdk2m/.

Changes in Attitudes and Confidence in the Integration of Psychiatry in Other Areas of Medicine.

OBJECTIVE: The authors describe how attitudes and confidence in the integration of psychiatry into other areas of medicine change over time during clinical clerkship in medical school. METHODS: From January 2015 to December 2016, medical students from the University of Iowa were recruited for a prospective study of changes in the Attitudes and Confidence in the Integration of Psychiatry Scale (ACIP) scale. The survey instrument was completed before their psychiatry clerkship, after the clerkship, and at the end of the year following that and other clinical clerkships. Other information such as gender, time spent in clerkship, USMLE Step 1 score, and clerkship grades was also collected. RESULTS: A total of 172 surveys were completed by 138 students. The ACIP score was significantly higher at the end of the participants' clinical clerkship (67.2 to 76.6; t=-7.72, p<0.0001). Of the two ACIP subscales, confidence increased significantly (25.6 to 33.3; t=-9.82, p<0.0001), but attitudes toward integration of psychiatry did not (41.7 to 43.4; t=-1.96, p=0.059). Similar findings were seen in the subset of 34 students for whom pre- and post-clerkship data could be matched. CONCLUSIONS: At the end of their clinical clerkship, medical students feel more confident providing psychiatric care. The lack of significant increase in the ACIP scale's attitude subscale either demonstrates that attitude scores going into clerkship were already high and did not deteriorate, or highlights an area for clerkship curriculum development.

Reporting Bias in Imaging Diagnostic Test Accuracy Studies: Are Studies With Positive Conclusions or Titles Submitted and Published Faster?

OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this study is to evaluate whether imaging diagnostic test accuracy (DTA) studies with positive conclusions or titles have a shorter time to publication than those with nonpositive (i.e., negative or neutral) conclusions or titles. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We included primary imaging DTA studies from systematic reviews published in 2015. The conclusion and title of each study were extracted, and their positivity was classified independently in duplicate. The time from study completion to publication was extracted and calculated. A Cox regression model was used to evaluate associations of conclusion and title positivity with time to publication, with adjustment made for potentially confounding variables. RESULTS: A total of 774 imaging DTA studies were included; time from study completion to publication could be calculated for 516 studies. The median time from completion to publication was 18 months (interquartile range, 13-26 months) for the 413 studies with positive conclusions, 23 months (interquartile range, 16-33 months) for the 63 studies with neutral conclusions, and 25 months (interquartile range, 15-38 months) for the 40 studies with negative conclusions. A positive conclusion was associated with a shorter time from study completion to publication compared with a non-positive conclusion (hazard ratio, 1.31; 95% CI, 1.02-1.68). Of all included studies, 39 (5%) had positive titles, 731 (94%) had neutral titles, and 4 (< 1%) had negative titles. Positive titles were not significantly associated with a shorter time to study publication (hazard ratio, 1.12; 95% CI, 0.75-1.69). CONCLUSION: Positive conclusions (but not titles) were associated with a shorter time from study completion to publication. This finding may contribute to an overrepresentation of positive results in the imaging DTA literature.

Thoracic imaging tests for the diagnosis of COVID-19.

BACKGROUND: The respiratory illness caused by SARS-CoV-2 infection continues to present diagnostic challenges. Our 2020 edition of this review showed thoracic (chest) imaging to be sensitive and moderately specific in the diagnosis of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). In this update, we include new relevant studies, and have removed studies with case-control designs, and those not intended to be diagnostic test accuracy studies. OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the diagnostic accuracy of thoracic imaging (computed tomography (CT), X-ray and ultrasound) in people with suspected COVID-19. SEARCH METHODS: We searched the COVID-19 Living Evidence Database from the University of Bern, the Cochrane COVID-19 Study Register, The Stephen B. Thacker CDC Library, and repositories of COVID-19 publications through to 30 September 2020. We did not apply any language restrictions. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included studies of all designs, except for case-control, that recruited participants of any age group suspected to have COVID-19 and that reported estimates of test accuracy or provided data from which we could compute estimates. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: The review authors independently and in duplicate screened articles, extracted data and assessed risk of bias and applicability concerns using the QUADAS-2 domain-list. We presented the results of estimated sensitivity and specificity using paired forest plots, and we summarised pooled estimates in tables. We used a bivariate meta-analysis model where appropriate. We presented the uncertainty of accuracy estimates using 95% confidence intervals (CIs). MAIN RESULTS: We included 51 studies with 19,775 participants suspected of having COVID-19, of whom 10,155 (51%) had a final diagnosis of COVID-19. Forty-seven studies evaluated one imaging modality each, and four studies evaluated two imaging modalities each. All studies used RT-PCR as the reference standard for the diagnosis of COVID-19, with 47 studies using only RT-PCR and four studies using a combination of RT-PCR and other criteria (such as clinical signs, imaging tests, positive contacts, and follow-up phone calls) as the reference standard. Studies were conducted in Europe (33), Asia (13), North America (3) and South America (2); including only adults (26), all ages (21), children only (1), adults over 70 years (1), and unclear (2); in inpatients (2), outpatients (32), and setting unclear (17). Risk of bias was high or unclear in thirty-two (63%) studies with respect to participant selection, 40 (78%) studies with respect to reference standard, 30 (59%) studies with respect to index test, and 24 (47%) studies with respect to participant flow. For chest CT (41 studies, 16,133 participants, 8110 (50%) cases), the sensitivity ranged from 56.3% to 100%, and specificity ranged from 25.4% to 97.4%. The pooled sensitivity of chest CT was 87.9% (95% CI 84.6 to 90.6) and the pooled specificity was 80.0% (95% CI 74.9 to 84.3). There was no statistical evidence indicating that reference standard conduct and definition for index test positivity were sources of heterogeneity for CT studies. Nine chest CT studies (2807 participants, 1139 (41%) cases) used the COVID-19 Reporting and Data System (CO-RADS) scoring system, which has five thresholds to define index test positivity. At a CO-RADS threshold of 5 (7 studies), the sensitivity ranged from 41.5% to 77.9% and the pooled sensitivity was 67.0% (95% CI 56.4 to 76.2); the specificity ranged from 83.5% to 96.2%; and the pooled specificity was 91.3% (95% CI 87.6 to 94.0). At a CO-RADS threshold of 4 (7 studies), the sensitivity ranged from 56.3% to 92.9% and the pooled sensitivity was 83.5% (95% CI 74.4 to 89.7); the specificity ranged from 77.2% to 90.4% and the pooled specificity was 83.6% (95% CI 80.5 to 86.4). For chest X-ray (9 studies, 3694 participants, 2111 (57%) cases) the sensitivity ranged from 51.9% to 94.4% and specificity ranged from 40.4% to 88.9%. The pooled sensitivity of chest X-ray was 80.6% (95% CI 69.1 to 88.6) and the pooled specificity was 71.5% (95% CI 59.8 to 80.8). For ultrasound of the lungs (5 studies, 446 participants, 211 (47%) cases) the sensitivity ranged from 68.2% to 96.8% and specificity ranged from 21.3% to 78.9%. The pooled sensitivity of ultrasound was 86.4% (95% CI 72.7 to 93.9) and the pooled specificity was 54.6% (95% CI 35.3 to 72.6). Based on an indirect comparison using all included studies, chest CT had a higher specificity than ultrasound. For indirect comparisons of chest CT and chest X-ray, or chest X-ray and ultrasound, the data did not show differences in specificity or sensitivity. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Our findings indicate that chest CT is sensitive and moderately specific for the diagnosis of COVID-19. Chest X-ray is moderately sensitive and moderately specific for the diagnosis of COVID-19. Ultrasound is sensitive but not specific for the diagnosis of COVID-19. Thus, chest CT and ultrasound may have more utility for excluding COVID-19 than for differentiating SARS-CoV-2 infection from other causes of respiratory illness. Future diagnostic accuracy studies should pre-define positive imaging findings, include direct comparisons of the various modalities of interest in the same participant population, and implement improved reporting practices.

Publication bias in diagnostic imaging: conference abstracts with positive conclusions are more likely to be published.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate whether imaging diagnostic test accuracy conference abstracts with positive conclusions or titles are more likely to reach full-text publication than those with negative (or neutral) conclusions or titles. METHODS: Diagnostic accuracy research abstracts were included if they were presented at the 2011 or 2012 Radiological Society of North America conference. Full-text publication status at 5 years post conference abstract submission was determined. Conclusion and title positivity of conference abstracts were extracted, as well as potential confounding factors. The associations of conclusion and title positivity with publication status at 5 years post conference abstract submission were assessed using a multivariable logistic regression model. Conditional odds ratios were calculated to express the strength of associations, adjusting for the confounders. RESULTS: In total, 282/400 (71%) of included conference abstracts reached full-text publication. A total of 246 out of 337 (74%) conference abstracts with positive conclusions resulted in full-text publications, compared with 26/48 (54%) with neutral conclusions and 5/15 (33%) with negative conclusions. In multivariable logistic regression, conclusion positivity was significantly associated with full-text publication (odds ratio 3.6; 95% CI 1.9-6.7 for conference abstracts with positive conclusions, compared with those with non-positive conclusions); this did not apply to title positivity (odds ratio 1.2; 95% CI 0.47-3.0). CONCLUSION: Imaging conference abstracts with positive conclusions were more likely to be published as full-text articles. Title positivity was not associated with publication. This preferential publication pattern may lead to an overrepresentation of positive studies in the literature. An overrepresentation of positive studies may contribute to inflated estimates of test accuracy and has the potential to adversely influence patient care. KEY POINTS: • Imaging diagnostic test accuracy conference abstracts with positive conclusions were more likely to be reported as full-text articles than those with non-positive conclusions. • The majority (75%) of imaging diagnostic test accuracy conference abstracts with positive conclusions were published, compared with only 53% and 33% with neutral and negative conclusions, respectively. • Conclusion positivity remained associated with the full-text publication of conference abstracts when controlling for multiple potential confounding variables.

High-Dose Buprenorphine Initiation: A Scoping Review.

OBJECTIVE: The aim of the study is to review and synthesize the literature on high-dose buprenorphine initiation (>12-mg total dose on day of initiation). METHODS: A scoping review of literature about high-dose buprenorphine initiation was conducted. MEDLINE, Embase, PsycINFO, and Cochrane Central were searched. Randomized controlled trials, prospective and retrospective cohort studies, and case studies/reports published in English before February 13, 2023, were included. RESULTS: Fifteen studies reporting outcomes from 580 high-dose buprenorphine initiations were included. Eight studies were in inpatient settings, 3 in emergency departments, 3 in outpatient settings, and 1 in a first-responder setting. Four studies reported high-dose initiations among individuals exposed to fentanyl. There were no reported events of fatal or nonfatal overdose or respiratory depression, although adverse event reporting was inconsistent in published reports. The most reported side effects with high-dose buprenorphine initiation were nausea or vomiting (n = 17) and precipitated withdrawal (n = 7). The most serious reported adverse event was hypotension requiring oral hydration (n = 2). Most studies reported improvements in subjective or objective withdrawal symptoms. The duration of follow-up ranged from none to 8 months. CONCLUSIONS: High-dose buprenorphine initiation has not been associated with reported cases of overdose or respiratory depression. However, the current literature about high-dose buprenorphine is limited by inconsistent side effect reporting, limited power to detect rare safety events such as respiratory depression, limited follow-up data, and few comparison studies between high-dose and regular initiation protocols. Further prospective data are needed to evaluate the safety and effectiveness of this initiation strategy.

On the value of meta-research for early career researchers: A commentary.

Meta-research, also known as "research on research" is a field of study that investigates the methods, reporting, reproducibility, evaluation, and incentives along the research continuum. Meta-research literacy is imperative to ensure high quality, transparent and reproducible primary data or meta-research products. In this commentary, we propose that early career researchers should be trained in meta-research as a foundation to develop a deeper understanding of the research process and ability to appraise the research literature and design high-quality original studies, irrespective of their chosen field of study. We discuss the importance of meta-research and open science from the perspective of an early career trainee, highlighting essential areas for growth and obstacles one may encounter.

Chronic high-dose dimenhydrinate use contributing to early multifactorial cognitive impairment.

Dimenhydrinate is an over-the-counter antihistaminergic medication with anticholinergic properties used to treat nausea or motion sickness worldwide. There is a well-established correlation between the use of anticholinergic medications and dementia, however, it is unclear if a causal role exists. We report a case of minor neurocognitive disorder in a woman in her 40s with several years of high-dose daily dimenhydrinate abuse who subsequently developed significant delusional beliefs. Her clinical presentation was confounded by numerous other factors that could have impacted her cognition, such as a longstanding presumed learning disability, ankylosing spondylitis with adalimumab treatment, extensive cannabis use or potential development of a primary psychotic disorder. Her workup was within normal limits, and she has not responded to first-line antipsychotic medications to date. This case report adds to the growing evidence supporting concerns about potentially irreversible cognitive deficits in chronic misuse of anticholinergic agents, an association previously observed only in the elderly population.

Adverse outcomes and mortality in individuals with eating disorder-related electrolyte abnormalities in Ontario, Canada: a population-based cohort study.

BACKGROUND: Individuals with eating disorders are at a higher risk of electrolyte abnormalities than the general population. We conducted the first representative cohort study assessing whether electrolyte abnormalities in people with eating disorders were associated with mortality and physical health outcomes. METHODS: This was a retrospective population-based cohort study in Ontario including people aged 13 years or older with an eating disorder and an outpatient electrolyte measure within 1 year (between Jan 1, 2008 and June 30, 2019). An electrolyte abnormality was any of hypokalaemia, hyperkalaemia, hyponatraemia, hypernatraemia, hypomagnesaemia, hypophosphataemia, metabolic acidosis, or metabolic alkalosis. The primary outcome was all-cause mortality. Secondary outcomes were hospitalisation, a cardiac event, infection, acute or chronic kidney disease, fracture, and bowel obstruction. In additional analyses, we examined a younger cohort (<25 years old) and individuals with no previously diagnosed secondary outcome. We involved people with related lived or family experience in the study. FINDINGS: 6163 patients with an eating disorder and an electrolyte measure within 1 year since diagnosis (mean age 26·8 years [SD 17·5]; 5456 [88·5%] female, 707 [11·5%] male; median follow-up 6·4 years [IQR 4-9]) were included. Ethnicity data were not available. The most common electrolyte abnormalities were hypokalaemia (994/1987 [50·0%]), hyponatraemia (752/1987 [37·8%]), and hypernatraemia (420/1987 [21·1%]). Overall, mortality occurred in 311/1987 (15·7%) of those with an electrolyte abnormality versus 234/4176 (5·6%) in those without (absolute risk difference 10·1%; adjusted hazard ratio 1·23 [95% CI 1·03-1·48]). Hospitalisation (1202/1987 [60·5%] vs 1979/4176 [47·4%]; 1·35 [1·25-1·46]), acute kidney injury (206/1987 [10·4%] vs 124/4176 [3%]; 1·91 [1·50-2·43]), chronic kidney disease (245/1987 [12·3%] vs 181/4176 [4·3%]; 1·44 [1·17-1·77]), bone fracture (140/1987 [7·0%] vs 167/4176 [4·0%]; 1·40 [1·10-1·78]), and bowel obstruction (72/1987 [3·6%] vs 57/4176 [1·4%]; 1·62 [1·12-2·35]) were associated with an electrolyte abnormality, but not infection or a cardiovascular event. Findings were consistent in young individuals (<25 years old) and those without secondary outcomes at baseline, by eating disorder type, and by sex. INTERPRETATION: Electrolyte abnormalities are associated with death and poor physical health outcomes, supporting the importance of monitoring and possible interventions to prevent adverse outcomes. Findings also call for a refinement of the definition of severity of eating disorder and replication of these findings in other jurisdictions. FUNDING: None.

How to optimize the systematic review process using AI tools.

Systematic reviews are a cornerstone for synthesizing the available evidence on a given topic. They simultaneously allow for gaps in the literature to be identified and provide direction for future research. However, due to the ever-increasing volume and complexity of the available literature, traditional methods for conducting systematic reviews are less efficient and more time-consuming. Numerous artificial intelligence (AI) tools are being released with the potential to optimize efficiency in academic writing and assist with various stages of the systematic review process including developing and refining search strategies, screening titles and abstracts for inclusion or exclusion criteria, extracting essential data from studies and summarizing findings. Therefore, in this article we provide an overview of the currently available tools and how they can be incorporated into the systematic review process to improve efficiency and quality of research synthesis. We emphasize that authors must report all AI tools that have been used at each stage to ensure replicability as part of reporting in methods.

The effect of weighted blankets on sleep quality and mental health symptoms in people with psychiatric disorders in inpatient and outpatient settings: A systematic review and meta-analysis.

There is limited synthesized evidence for weighted blankets usage in psychiatric patients. We performed a PRISMA compliant systematic review and meta-analysis of the effects of weighted blankets on sleep and mental health outcomes in psychiatric patients. MEDLINE, EMBASE, Cochrane Library, and PsycINFO were searched up to December 15th, 2023. Randomized controlled trials (RCT) or cohort studies reporting objective outcome scales of sleep and mental health were included. Standardized mean difference (SMD) measured effect size. Q and I2 tests measured heterogeneity. Cochrane Risk of Bias Tool 2 and NIH Quality Assessment Tool assessed risk of bias. Nine studies of 553 psychiatric inpatients and outpatients with diagnoses including depression, bipolar disorder, ADHD, and autism. 289 participants received weighted blankets and 264 were in control groups. Intervention length ranged from 5 min to one year. Four studies reported evidence for weighted blankets in improving insomnia, total sleep time, and sleep onset latency. Six studies reported evidence for reducing anxiety symptoms. When compared to placebo, those using weighted blankets had improvements to anxiety symptoms (SMD = -0.47, 95% CI: -0.68 to -0.25, p < 0.001). One RCT had low risk of bias, 3 had some concerns, 1 was high risk. Three cohort studies were "fair" and one was "poor" in quality. It was found that weighted blankets can be effective in reducing anxiety in psychiatric patients. However, the literature is limited by heterogeneity of outcome reporting, lack of well designed RCTs, and small sample sizes. Highlighting the need for higher quality studies.

Interventions to prevent and treat delirium: An umbrella review of randomized controlled trials.

Delirium is a common condition across different settings and populations. The interventions for preventing and managing this condition are still poorly known. The aim of this umbrella review is to synthesize and grade all preventative and therapeutic interventions for delirium. We searched five databases from database inception up to March 15th, 2023 and we included meta-analyses of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) to decrease the risk of/the severity of delirium. From 1959 records after deduplication, we included 59 systematic reviews with meta-analyses, providing 110 meta-analytic estimates across populations, interventions, outcomes, settings, and age groups (485 unique RCTs, 172,045 participants). In surgery setting, for preventing delirium, high GRADE evidence supported dexmedetomidine (RR=0.53; 95%CI: 0.46-0.67, k=13, N=3988) and comprehensive geriatric assessment (OR=0.46; 95%CI=0.32-0.67, k=3, N=496) in older adults, dexmedetomidine in adults (RR=0.33, 95%CI=0.24-0.45, k=7, N=1974), A2-adrenergic agonists after induction of anesthesia (OR= 0.28, 95%CI= 0.19-0.40, k=10, N=669) in children. High certainty evidence did not support melatonergic agents in older adults for delirium prevention. Moderate certainty supported the effect of dexmedetomidine in adults and children (k=4), various non-pharmacological interventions in adults and older people (k=4), second-generation antipsychotics in adults and mixed age groups (k=3), EEG-guided anesthesia in adults (k=2), mixed pharmacological interventions (k=1), five other specific pharmacological interventions in children (k=1 each). In conclusion, our work indicates that effective treatments to prevent delirium differ across populations, settings, and age groups. Results inform future guidelines to prevent or treat delirium, accounting for safety and costs of interventions. More research is needed in non-surgical settings.

Effects of antipsychotic treatment on cardio-cerebrovascular related mortality in schizophrenia: A subanalysis of a systematic review and meta-analysis with meta-regression of moderators.

To further explore the role of different antipsychotic treatments for cardio-cerebrovascular mortality, we performed several subgroup, sensitivity and meta-regression analyses based on a large previous meta-analysis focusing on cohort studies assessing mortality relative risk (RR) for cardio-cerebrovascular disorders in people with schizophrenia, comparing antipsychotic treatment versus no antipsychotic. Quality assessment through the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale (NOS) and publication bias was measured. We meta-analyzed 53 different studies (schizophrenia patients: n = 2,513,359; controls: n = 360,504,484) to highlight the differential effects of antipsychotic treatment regimens on cardio-cerebrovascular-related mortality in incident and prevalent samples of patients with schizophrenia. We found first generation antipsychotics (FGA) to be associated with higher mortality in incident samples of schizophrenia (oral FGA [RR=2.20, 95 %CI=1.29-3.77, k = 1] and any FGA [RR=1.70, 95 %CI=1.20-2.41, k = 1]). Conversely, second generation antipsychotics (SGAs) and clozapine were associated with reduced cardio-cerebrovascular-related mortality, in prevalent samples of schizophrenia. Subgroup analyses with NOS score ≥7 (higher quality) demonstrated a significantly increased cardio-cerebrovascular disorder-related mortality, among those exposed to FGAs vs SGAs. Meta-regression analyses demonstrated a larger association between antipsychotics and decreased risk of mortality with longer follow-up, recent study year, and higher number of adjustment variables. Overall, this subanalysis of a systematic review contributes to the evolving understanding of the complex role of antipsychotic treatment for cardio-cerebrovascular mortality in schizophrenia, paving the way for more targeted interventions and improved patient outcomes.