The top sports medicine influencers on X (formerly Twitter).

BACKGROUND: With increasing sports medicine content on social media, we sought to identify the top sports medicine influencers on X (formerly Twitter) and analyse their common characteristics. METHODS: X influence scores for "Sports Medicine" were collected in November 2021 from Right Relevance. Accounts were then screened in a blind, duplicate manner for personal and X profile characteristics. RESULTS: Physical therapists/physiotherapists made up 48% of the top sports science and medicine influencers. Locations in the U.S. and U.K. were listed for half of the influencers. The mean h-index was 30.2 (95% CI = [24.8-35.6]) with a median of 22.0 (range = 1-101). Most individuals reported multiple practice settings (63%), with 60% associated with an academic setting. Professional (62%) and Olympic (49%) level athletics were most frequently mentioned, with soccer (48%) and rugby (30%) as the most common sports. Among 76 profiles with URLs, most were linked to personal websites (57.9%). CONCLUSION: The top influencers on X consisted of accredited sports science and medicine professionals across various locations and occupations, providing ample networking and collaboration opportunities. The relatively high h-index in this study suggests sports science and medicine influencers on X are notable contributors to academic literature.

Conflicts of Interest Among Authors of Systematic Reviews Regarding the Management of Chronic Non-Cancer Pain with Opioids Analgesics.

OBJECTIVE: We sought to determine whether author conflict of interest (disclosed or undisclosed) or industry sponsorship influenced the favorability of reporting of systematic reviews and meta-analyses investigating the use of opioid analgesics for the management of chronic non-cancer pain. METHODS: Our search included the MEDLINE (Ovid) and Embase (Ovid) databases. Study sponsorship was determined using the funding statement provided in each systematic review. Author COI information was extracted from the COI disclosure statement. This information was cross-referenced with information available on the CMS Open Payments Database, Dollars for Profs, Google Patents, the United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO), and previously published COI disclosures. RESULTS: Eight systematic reviews authored by 83 authors were included. Of these authors, 19 (23.0%) were found to have a COI, of which the majority (17/19; 89.5%) had at least one undisclosed COI. Despite nearly one-quarter of authors having a COI, we found no association between the presence of a COI and the favorability of results (P = 0.64) or conclusions (P = 0.07). CONCLUSIONS: COI are common and frequently undisclosed among systematic review authors investigating opioid analgesics for the management of chronic non-cancer pain. Despite a high prevalence of COI, we did not find that these author-industry relationships had a significant influence on the favorability of results and conclusions; however, our findings should be considered a lower bound estimate of the true influence author COI have on outcomes of pain medicine systematic reviews secondary to the low sample size included in the present study.

Evaluating the relationship between industry sponsorship and conflicts of interest among systematic review authors on treatments for cannabis use disorder.

Background: Cannabis is the most commonly used illicit drug worldwide. In addition to potential adverse effects, an estimated 9% consistent cannabis users are likely to become dependent and may develop a cannabis use disorder (CUD). Methods: This cross-sectional study developed a search strategy using Ovid, MEDLINE, and Ovid Embase for systematic reviews and meta-analyses focused on CUD treatment in June 2020. These reviews were evaluated for conflicts of interest (COIs) per previously developed classification scheme. Our primary objectives were to (1) evaluate the presence of disclosed or undisclosed COI of systematic review authors, regarding treatment of CUD; and (2) determine whether overall summary effect estimates, narrative results and conclusions were influenced by the presence of disclosed or undisclosed COIs among systematic review authors. Results: Our systematic search returned 560 articles which 9 systematic reviews were eligible for data extraction. We found 77.8% (7/9) contained at least one author with a COI. From the 51 authors included, 29.4% (15/51) were found to have a COI. Forty-four percent (4/9) were funded, 22.2% (2/9) were not funded, and 33.3% (3/9) had no funding statements. Out of the 7 systematic reviews with one or more authors containing COI, 14.2% (1/7) included results favoring the treatment group and 28.6% (2/7) included conclusions favoring the treatment group. Our results showed no significance between funding source and results (p = 0.429) or conclusions. Additionally, we found no significance between the presence of COIs with the favorability of results (p = 0.56) or conclusions. Conclusion: Multiple studies favored the treatment of cannabis-containing products, even though COIs were found in the majority of the systematic reviews. COIs have the ability to sway results of a study, which can affect clinical decision-making. Stricter guidelines should be enforced among authors displaying COIs in systematic reviews studying CUD treatment.

Evaluation of conflicts of interest among systematic review authors on pharmacological therapies for alcohol use disorder: A cross-sectional study.

Introduction and aims: The high prevalence and economic burden of alcohol use disorder (AUD) requires methodologically sound research to guide treatment decisions. Systematic reviews (SR) are fundamental to clinical decision making as they collate results of all studies for a given topic and provide summaries of the clinical evidence. Bias resulting from industry relationships can compromise the validity of SRs. Thus, we investigated financial conflicts of interests (FCOI) within SRs involving the pharmacologic treatment of AUD. Design and Methods: We conducted a systematic search of PubMed, Embase, and the Cochrane Database to retrieve SRs published between September 2016 and December 2019. Screening and data extraction were performed in duplicate, blinded fashion-collecting characteristics of the reviews including the authors' FCOI statements. The results and discussion sections were rated as favorable or unfavorable toward the treatment drug. A stepwise method was used to identify undisclosed FCOIs for all SR authors. Results: Nineteen (of 51) authors representing 7 (of 12) SRs were found to have FCOI. Among reviews with conflicted authors, 3 of 7 (42.9%) results sections were favorable toward the treatment drug, whereas 6 of 7 (85.7%) conclusions were rated as favorable. Discussion and Conclusions: More than one-third of SR authors and nearly two-thirds of studies were found to have FCOIs. Our investigation shows that financial ties are frequent among SR authors on AUD pharmacotherapies and that discussion sections often favored the drug for which the sponsor provided payments.

Harms-related data are poorly reported among randomized controlled trials underpinning the American Academy of Orthopaedic Surgeons clinical practice guideline recommendations for rotator cuff injuries.

BACKGROUND: Results produced from randomized controlled trials (RCTs) help guide clinical decision making and health policy. Therefore, it is essential that RCT outcomes- including harms (eg, adverse events)-are adequately reported such that clinicians, patients, and policy makers are equipped with all necessary information to complete risk-benefit assessment of the RCT's intervention. Here, we evaluated the quality of reporting of harms (eg, adverse events) in RCTs cited as supporting evidence for recommendations in the American Academy of Orthopaedic Surgeons (AAOS) Management of Rotator Cuff Injuries clinical practice guidelines (CPGs) using the Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials (CONSORT) Extension for Harms Checklist. METHODS: To quantify adherence to CONSORT Extension for Harms items, each RCT was screened for pertinent information satisfying each checklist item. Screening of CPG reference sections for RCTs underpinning CPG recommendations, as well as data extraction from each of the included RCTs, was performed in a blind and duplicate manner. Descriptive statistics-including frequencies, percentages, and 95% confidence intervals-were used to summarize overall percent adherence to checklist items. A linear regression model assessed the relationship of CONSORT Harms reporting over time. RESULTS: Ninety-nine RCTs were included in our final sample. Fifty-seven RCTs (of 99; 57.6%) were conducted at a single center. Common funding sources included private (nonindustry) (17/99; 17.2%), private (industry) (8/99; 8.1%), and public (7/99; 7.1%) sources. Sample size for each trial most often consisted of <50 participants (29/99; 29.3%) or 51-100 participants (50/99; 50.5%). The average number of CONSORT Extension for Harms items adequately reported across all included RCTs was 5.7 (of 18; 31.7%). None of the included trials reported all 18 items. Twenty-six RCTs (of 99; 26.3%) adequately reported ≥50% of eligible checklist items. Fifty-nine RCTs (of 99; 59.6%) adequately reported ≤33% of eligible checklist items. Items with ≥50% adherence included item 2, item 7a, and item 8a. Items with ≤20% adherence included item 3b, item 4d, and item 5. Results from our linear regression demonstrated a slight, yet nonsignificant, improvement in adherence to the Harms Extension over time (R2 = 0.009; P = .407). CONCLUSIONS: Our results illustrate the poor state of harms reporting within RCTs cited as supporting evidence for the AAOS Management of Rotator Cuff Injuries CPG. Efforts to address these gaps in reporting are warranted, as complete knowledge of potential harms is critical to patients, clinicians, and health policy makers when determining best practice decisions in orthopedic surgery.

Inadequate Reporting of Complications in Randomized Controlled Trials Cited as Supporting Evidence Underpinning AAOS CPG Recommendations for Hip and Knee Osteoarthritis: Application of the CONSORT Harms Checklist.

BACKGROUND: Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) have been shown to influence clinical decision-making and health policy. Therefore, it is essential that trial outcomes-including harms-are completely reported. METHODS: We included all RCTs cited as supporting evidence for the American Academy of Orthopaedic Surgeons Surgical Management of Osteoarthritis of the Knee, Osteoarthritis of the Knee, and Osteoarthritis of theHip Clinical Practice Guideline recommendations. Manuscripts were analyzed for compliance with the Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials (CONSORT) Extension for Harms items. We determined the Extension for Harms' influence on harms reporting by comparing RCTs published before and after the extension's release. RESULTS: One hundred and seventy-three RCTs were included, of which 81 (47%) adequately reported ≥50% of the checklist and 75 (43%) reported ≤33% of the checklist items. The mean number of checklist items reported was 8 items (of 18; 45%). Our interrupted time-series analysis suggests the implementation of the CONSORT Extension for Harms did not have a statistically significant effect on the completeness of harms reporting (P = .35; 95% Confidence interval = -0.0041 to 0.0014). CONCLUSION: Harms-related data are poorly reported within RCTs cited as supporting evidence for the American Academy of Orthopaedic Surgeons management for hip and knee OA Clinical Practice Guideline. Our time series analysis illustrates the failure of the CONSORT Extension for Harms on improving the reporting of harms-related data. Future efforts to improve the quality of harms reporting is crucial for patients, clinicians, and policy makers to perform thorough risk-benefit appraisals as RCT results directly influence clinical decision-making in orthopaedic surgery.

An Analysis of the Evidence Underpinning the American Academy Orthopaedic Surgery Pediatrics Clinical Practice Guidelines.

BACKGROUND: Randomized control trials (RCTs) serve as evidentiary support for recommendations underpinning clinical practice guidelines (CPGs) with the goal of optimizing patient care. A knowledge gap exists within scientific literature when evaluating the quality of RCTs used as evidence in the American Academy of Orthopaedic Surgery (AAOS) pediatric CPGs. We aim to evaluate the reporting quality and risk of bias in RCTs underlying AAOS Pediatric CPG recommendations. METHODS: We located all AAOS Pediatric CPGs. We then extracted all RCTs from the CPG reference sections. All included RCTs were evaluated using the Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials (CONSORT) checklist and Cochrane Collaboration risk of bias assessment tool (RoB 2.0). Descriptive statistics were recorded, and bivariate analysis was used to account for variance in CONSORT scores. A Mann-Whitney U test was completed to compare CONSORT studies published before and after 2010. RESULTS: Three CPGs and 23 RCTs met inclusion criteria. Mean CONSORT adherence was 69.8% (21.6/31). The lowest adhered to CONSORT items were 10, 23, and 24, while items 2a, 13a, and 18 displayed the highest adherence. Ten RCTs (43.5%, 10/23) had "low" risk of bias, 5 RCTs (21.7%, 5/23) were of "some concerns," and 8 RCTs (34.8%, 8/23) received a "high" designation for risk of bias. There were no statistically significant associations in the bivariate regression analysis or Mann-Whitney U test. CONCLUSIONS: Our results suggest that CONSORT adherence within RCTs used as evidence in AAOS Pediatric CPGs is substandard-relying on evidence that, in some cases, is >20 years old. Many of the RCTs cited as supporting evidence have a "high" risk of bias. Altogether, these CPGs may need to be updated or expanded to include more recent evidence relevant to pediatric orthopaedic surgery.

The Potential Effect of Lowering the Threshold of Statistical Significance From P < .05 to P < .005 in Orthopaedic Sports Medicine.

PURPOSE: To determine how changing the P value threshold of statistical significance from .05 to .005 could affect the statistical significance of findings in previously published orthopaedic sports medicine randomized controlled trials (RCTs). METHODS: The authors searched PubMed from January 1, 2016, to December 31, 2017, for RCTs published in the American Journal of Sports Medicine, Arthroscopy, and Knee Surgery, Sports Traumatology, Arthroscopy. Data were extracted blinded and in duplicate fashion by 2 of us. The authors then extracted P value data for primary end points, since RCTs are most often powered for these end points. Discrepancies were resolved by consensus. Google Forms were used for data extraction and STATA 15.1 for the data analysis. RESULTS: In total, 275 primary end points were identified from 132 trials. Analysis of primary end points found 45.8% (126/275) had a P value less than .05 and were classified as statistically significant under the current threshold, whereas 54.2% (149/275) had a P value greater than .05 and were not classified as suggestive. Of those end points that were previously considered statistically significant, 38.9% (49/126) were less than .005, whereas 61.1% (77/126) were between .005 and .05 and thereby would be reclassified as suggestive rather than statistically significant under the proposed threshold. Overall, when analyzing the 275 primary end points, we found only 49 (17.8%) of the end points were less than .005 and would hold statistical significance with the proposed threshold. CONCLUSIONS: The results suggest that if the threshold of statistical significance were to change to .005, the significance of orthopaedic sports medicine RCTs would be heavily altered. The authors also acknowledge the many issues research faces in regard to P value reliability and therefore interpretation of study results. Because P values from RCTs can often influence the ways physicians choose interventions, it is important to implement methodology that decreases incidence of bias and misrepresentation of these results. However, the authors also understand that lowering the P value could increase the needed sample size and by consequence increase study costs as well, while not directly correlating to clinical significance. Thus, the authors recommend that this proposed threshold should be further evaluated and cautiously interpreted. CLINICAL RELEVANCE: If the statistical significance threshold is changed, clinical practice guideline recommendations also may be affected.

Is World Malaria Day an effective awareness campaign? An evaluation of public interest in malaria during World Malaria Day.

OBJECTIVE: We retrospectively analysed the relative search interest of malaria to (1) assess the relationship between Internet searches for malaria and rates of infection in 11 countries considered 'high burden' by WHO in 2019 and to (2) determine the ability of World Malaria Day on April 25 to generate interest in the disease. METHODS: Using Google Trends, we sought to determine the relative popularity of the topic of Malaria over 4 years (2015-2019). Worldwide and country-specific searches for 'malaria' were used to assess the influence the international awareness day has on global and local interest in malaria. In order to determine whether a relationship exists between Internet searches and the disease burden of malaria, the information gathered from Google Trends was then compared with reports of morbidity and mortality of malaria from the 2019 World Malaria Report. RESULTS: Globally, a negative mean difference in relative search volume was observed between World Malaria Day and the control periods of -2.46 (95% CI: -5.57 to 0.66). The relative search volume for malaria-related search terms increased by 2.91% (±4.60) from January 2015 to 1 July 2019 in the 5 countries with the highest malaria disease burden. A positive correlation (r = 0.804) was found between per capita infections and malaria Internet search interest in addition to deaths per 1000 residents and malaria relative search interest (r = 0.663) between 2015 and 2018. CONCLUSION: Initiatives such as World Malaria Day may help raise public awareness concerning a specific disease, prompting individuals to seek out additional information. This is especially important in high-burden countries where access to the Internet is steadily growing. In these circumstances, having quality and easily accessible information is vital in the continuing fight against malaria.

OBJECTIF: Nous avons analysé rétrospectivement l'intérêt de recherche relatif du paludisme pour (1) évaluer la relation entre les recherches sur Internet pour le paludisme et les taux d'infection dans 11 pays considérés comme «à forte charge¼ par l'OMS en 2019 et pour (2) déterminer la capacité de la Journée Mondiale contre le Paludisme, le 25 avril à susciter l'intérêt pour la maladie. MÉTHODES: A l'aide de Google Trends, nous avons cherché à déterminer la popularité relative du thème du paludisme sur 4 ans (2015-2019). Des recherches mondiales et spécifiques aux pays pour le «paludisme¼ ont été utilisées pour évaluer l'influence de la journée internationale de sensibilisation sur l'intérêt mondial et local pour le paludisme. Afin de déterminer s'il existe une relation entre les recherches sur Internet et la charge de morbidité du paludisme, les informations recueillies à partir de Google Trends ont ensuite été comparées aux rapports sur la morbidité et la mortalité du paludisme du Rapport Mondial sur le Paludisme 2019. RÉSULTATS: Globalement, une différence moyenne négative du volume de recherche relative a été observée entre la Journée Mondiale contre le Paludisme et les périodes témoins de -2,46 (IC95%: -5,57 à 0,66). Le volume de recherche relatif pour les termes de recherche liés au paludisme a augmenté de 2,91% (± 4,60) de janvier 2015 au 1er juillet 2019 dans les 5 pays où la charge de morbidité du paludisme est la plus élevée. Une corrélation positive (r = 0,804) a été trouvée entre les infections par habitant et l'intérêt de la recherche sur le paludisme sur Internet en plus des décès pour 1000 habitants et l'intérêt de la recherche relative du paludisme (r = 0,663) entre 2015 et 2018. CONCLUSION: Des initiatives telles que la Journée Mondiale contre le Paludisme peuvent contribuer à sensibiliser le public à une maladie spécifique, incitant les individus à rechercher des informations supplémentaires. Ceci est particulièrement important dans les pays à forte charge où l'accès à Internet est en constante augmentation. Dans ces circonstances, il est essentiel de disposer d'informations de qualité et facilement accessibles pour la lutte continue contre le paludisme.

Transparency Matters: Assessing Harms Reporting Compliance in Randomized Controlled Trials Underpinning the AAOS Clinical Practice Guideline for Anterior Cruciate Ligament Injuries.

BACKGROUND: The American Academy of Orthopaedic Surgeons (AAOS) has developed a clinical practice guideline (CPG) for management of anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) injuries. Primary studies such as randomized controlled trials (RCTs) are cited as evidence for the guidelines. Given the influence that these trials have on patient care, adherence to standardized protocols for conducting and reporting RCTs is essential. PURPOSE: To evaluate the CONSORT (Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials) Extension for Harms-related reporting of RCTs cited as supporting evidence for the AAOS CPG on the management of ACL tears. STUDY DESIGN: Cross-sectional study. METHODS: The reference section of the AAOS guideline for ACL tears was first screened for RCTs cited in the CPG. Next, each RCT was evaluated for adherence to the CONSORT Extension for Harms checklist. Both identification of RCTs and assessment of adherence were performed in a masked and duplicate process. Descriptive statistics were used to summarize adherence to CONSORT Extension for Harms items. A Pearson correlation test was conducted to assess the relationship between the year of publication and adherence to CONSORT harms reporting. RESULTS: The sample included 113 RCTs, of which 16 (14.2%) were published before the CONSORT Extension for Harms was implemented in 2004. Sample sizes ranged from 24 to 4564 participants, with a mean of 228. None of the included RCTs included all 18 items in the CONSORT Extension for Harms checklist. The mean number of checklist items reported was 4 (of 18; 22.2%). A moderate, positive, and statistically significant correlation was found between the RCT publication year and the adherence with reporting of the CONSORT Extension for Harms (t111 = 3.54; P < .001) (r = 0.32; 95% CI, 0.14-0.47). CONCLUSION: Harms were infrequently reported in RCTs cited as supporting evidence in the AAOS CPG for the management of ACL tears. One encouraging finding was the positive correlation between the year when RCTs were published and how well they adhered to reporting harms. Efforts to improve adverse event reporting are warranted, as RCTs are commonly used to make clinical decisions in orthopaedic surgery.

Inadequate harms reporting among randomized controlled trials cited as supporting evidence in the AAOS management of hip fractures in older adults clinical practice guideline recommendations.

BACKGROUND: Recommendations within clinical practice guidelines (CPGs) are heavily influenced by results from randomized controlled trials (RCTs). Therefore, it is imperative that all RCT outcomes are reported thoroughly to ensure CPGs are created using accurate information. Here, we evaluate the quality of harms reporting using the CONSORT Extension for Harms in RCTs underpinning recommendations in the American Academy of Orthopedic Surgeons (AAOS) Management of Hip Fractures in Older Adults CPG. METHODS: Each RCT cited as evidence for recommendations in the AAOS Management of Hip Fractures in Older Adults CPG was evaluated using the CONSORT Extension for Harms to determine the quality of harms reporting. Descriptive statistics (frequencies, percentages, 95 % confidence intervals) were used to summarize adherence to CONSORT Harms items. A linear regression model was used to evaluate the CONSORT Harms influence on the quality of reporting over time. RESULTS: Among the 156 RCTs identified, there were a total of 31,848 participants. Most RCTs were conducted at a single center (137; 87.8 %) and in a single-blind manner (130; 83.3 %). Fifty-four (34.6 %) RCTs did not provide funding statements. Trials adequately reported an average of 6.65 out of 18 CONSORT Extension for Harms items (37.0 %). One RCT adequately reported all items, while five reported zero items. Forty-seven RCTs (30.1 %) reported ≥ 50 % of items and 73 (46.8 %) reported ≤ 33.3 % of items. The linear regression model demonstrated no significant increase in mean adherence over time (adjusted R2 = -0.006; p = 0.563). CONCLUSION: Our results highlight inadequate harms reporting among RCTs in the AAOS Management of Hip Fractures in Older Patients CPG. While the CONSORT Harms Extension was intended to enhance reporting, the linear regression model did not demonstrate significant improvements over time.

Rates of discontinuation and non-publication of upper and lower extremity fracture clinical trials.

PURPOSE: To our knowledge, no study has quantified the rate of discontinuation and nonpublication of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) regarding upper and lower extremity fractures. METHODS: We searched ClinicalTrials.gov on September 9th, 2020, for phase 3 and 4 RCTs pertaining to upper and lower extremity fractures. Trial completion status was determined using records available on ClinicalTrials.gov. Publication status was determined using records on ClinicalTrials.gov and by searching PubMed (MEDLINE), Embase, and Google Scholar. We queried corresponding authors on trial status if a peer-reviewed publication was not identified. RESULTS: Our final analysis included 142 RCTs, of which 57 (40.1%) were discontinued and 71 (50%) were unpublished. Thirty-six (of 57, 63.2%) discontinued trials failed to provide a reason for discontinuation, the most commonly identified reason for discontinuation was due to inadequate recruitment (13/21, 61.9%). Completed trials were more likely to reach publication (59/85; 69.4%; X2 = 32.92; P ≤ 0.001) than discontinued trials. Trials with more than 80 participants were less likely not to reach publication (AOR: 0.12; 95% CI 0.15-0.66). CONCLUSION: Our analysis of 142 upper and lower extremity fracture RCTs demonstrated one-half failed to reach publication and two-fifths were discontinued prior to trial completion. These findings indicate the need for increased guidance in developing, completing, and publishing RCTs in upper and lower extremity fractures. Discontinuation and nonpublication of orthopaedic RCTs hinder the public's access to collected data and negate the valued contribution from study participants. Discontinuation and non-publication of clinical trials may subject participants to potentially harmful interventions, limit the advancement of clinical research, and contribute to research waste. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: III.

Analysis of the Evidence Underpinning the American Academy of Orthopedic Surgeons Knee Osteoarthritis Clinical Practice Guidelines.

CONTEXT: Clinical practice guidelines (CPGs) are vital to establishing a standardized and evidence-based approach in medicine. These guidelines rely on the use of methodologically sound clinical trials, and the subsequent reporting of their methodology. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the completeness of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) underpinning CPGs published by the American Academy of Orthopedic Surgeons (AAOS) for management of osteoarthritis of the knee. DATA SOURCES: We searched the most recent AAOS CPGs for surgical and nonsurgical management of osteoarthritis of the knee for RCTs. To estimate the necessary sample size, we performed a power analysis using OpenEpi 3.0 (openepi.com). STUDY SELECTION: Two authors independently screened the reference sections of the included CPGs. Included studies met the definition of an RCT, were retrievable in the English language, and were cited in at least one of the included CPGs. STUDY DESIGN: Meta-Analysis. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level 1a. DATA EXTRACTION: We performed double-blind screening and extraction of RCTs included in the AAOS CPGs. We evaluated each RCT for adherence to the Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials (CONSORT) 2010 checklist. A multiple regression analysis was conducted to assess CONSORT adherence against characteristics of included studies (ie, type of intervention, funding source, etc). RESULTS: Our study included 179 RCTs. The overall adherence was 68.5% with significant differences between those published before and since the development of the 2010 CONSORT guidelines (P = 0.02). We found that RCTs receiving funding from industry/private sources as well as studies that included a conflict of interest statement showed more completeness than RCTs that reported receiving no funding (P < 0.01). CONCLUSION: We found suboptimal CONSORT adherence for RCTs cited in AAOS CGPs for management of osteoarthritis of the knee. Therefore, the CPGs are likely supported by outdated evidence and lack of high-quality reporting. It is important that evidence used to guide clinical decision making be of the highest quality in order to optimize patient outcomes. In order for clinicians to confer the greatest benefits to their patients, CPGs should provide the totality of evidence and emphasize emerging high-quality RCTs to ensure up-to-date, evidence-based clinical decision-making.

Clinical trial data-sharing policies among journals, funding agencies, foundations, and other professional organizations: a scoping review.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: To identify the similarities and differences in data-sharing policies for clinical trial data that are endorsed by biomedical journals, funding agencies, and other professional organizations. Additionally, to determine the beliefs, and opinions regarding data-sharing policies for clinical trials discussed in articles published in biomedical journals. METHODS: Two searches were conducted, a bibliographic search for published articles that present beliefs, opinions, similarities, and differences regarding policies governing the sharing of clinical trial data. The second search analyzed the gray literature (non-peer-reviewed publications) to identify important data-sharing policies in selected biomedical journals, foundations, funding agencies, and other professional organizations. RESULTS: A total of 471 articles were included after database search and screening, with 45 from the bibliographic search and 426 from the gray literature search. A total of 424 data-sharing policies were included. Fourteen of the 45 published articles from the bibliographic search (31.1%) discussed only advantages specific to data-sharing policies, 27 (27/45; 60%) discussed both advantages and disadvantages, and 4 (4/45; 8.9%) discussed only disadvantages specific. A total of 216 journals (of 270; 80%) specified a data-sharing policy provided by the journal itself. One hundred industry data-sharing policies were included, and 32 (32%) referenced a data-sharing policy on their website. One hundred and thirty-six (42%) organizations (of 327) specified a data-sharing policy. CONCLUSION: We found many similarities listed as advantages to data-sharing and fewer disadvantages were discussed within the literature. Additionally, we found a wide variety of commonalities and differences-such as the lack of standardization between policies, and inadequately addressed details regarding the accessibility of research data-that exist in data-sharing policies endorsed by biomedical journals, funding agencies, and other professional organizations. Our study may not include information on all data sharing policies and our data is limited to the entities' descriptions of each policy.

Association between industry sponsorship and author conflicts of interest with outcomes of systematic reviews and meta-analyses of interventions for opioid use disorder.

INTRODUCTION: Author conflicts of interest (COI) and industry sponsorship may lead to biased research results and conclusions. Considering the direct influence that systematic reviews have on patient care, including the management of patients being treated for opioid use disorders (OUD), these studies should be free of industry bias. Thus, we sought to determine whether a relationship exists between COI and the favorability of systematic review outcomes using a sample of systematic reviews regarding OUD interventions. METHODS: We searched MEDLINE and Embase for systematic reviews and meta-analysis related to OUD treatment. The study team performed all data extraction in a masked duplicate fashion. We searched for undisclosed COI for each systematic review author in 3 databases--the CMS Open Payments database, Dollars for Profs, and the United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO). The research team quantified results using descriptive statistics. We evaluated associations between review characteristics using Fisher's exact tests, when possible. RESULTS: This article includes seventeen systematic reviews and meta-analyses with 81 authors. We found that 25 authors (30.9%) had some form of COI, and 22 (of 25, 88.0%) authors had an undisclosed COI. However, no significant association existed between COI and favorability of results and conclusions. Notably, two systematic reviews (of 17; 11.76%) were industry-sponsored. Similarly, we found no association between the study sponsor source and the favorability of systematic review results and conclusions. CONCLUSIONS: Our results suggest the favorability of systematic review results and conclusions are not influenced by author COI or industry sponsorship. However, nearly one-fourth of authors had an undisclosed COI, further emphasizing the need for standardization and adherence to COI disclosure policies within addiction medicine literature.

An analysis of publication trends of orthopedic surgery residency graduates in relation to academic achievement.

CONTEXT: Traditionally, the Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education (ACGME) requires residency programs to implement research and other scholarly activities into their training curriculum. Encouraging residents to publish during residency is believed to promote research throughout their careers; however, no study has attempted to quantify research productivity among orthopedic surgery residents before, during, and after residency. OBJECTIVES: To determine whether publishing in peer-reviewed journals during orthopedic residencies was an indicator of continued academic achievement after graduation. METHODS: This study was observational in nature and employed a cross-sectional design. We examined whether research outcomes during orthopedic residency was associated with academic advancement or continued research involvement after residency. We identified 201 orthopedic residency programs on the Doximity website and randomly selected 50 to include in our sample. Of these programs, graduate rosters for 31 programs were located and subsequently included. Of the 341 graduates identified, we recorded the number of peer-reviewed publications, H-indices, fellowships, and whether the graduate pursued a career in private practice or academia. RESULTS: Orthopedic residency graduates from 31 programs published a total of 1923 peer-reviewed manuscripts. On average, residents had a total of 5.6 publications and an h-index of 3.2. Residents entering academia and pursuing fellowships had a significantly higher total number of publications, higher number of first-author publications, and greater H-indices compared to those who did not enter academia or pursue a fellowship. CONCLUSIONS: Increased research productivity was associated with continued academic pursuits and an increased likelihood of pursuing fellowship training after residency.

An Analysis of the Evidence Underpinning the American Urologic Association Clinical Practice Guidelines.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the reporting quality of systematic reviews (SRs) underpinning the American Urologic Association (AUA) clinical practice guidelines (CPGs). METHODS: We searched the AUA for CPGs from 2015-2021. We extracted all SRs from the reference sections and two independent investigators evaluated eligible SR/meta-analysis using the PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Instrument for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses) and AMSTAR-2 (A Measurement Tool to Assess Systematic Reviews 2) instruments. We compared SRs conducted by the Cochrane group to non-Cochrane SRs using a Mann-Whitney test. A multivariate regression was used to compare study characteristics. RESULTS: Eighteen CPG's met inclusion criteria. We extracted 120 unique SRs, which accounted for 5.1% (n = 120/2346) of all citations. Mean percent adherence to PRISMA and AMSTAR-2 was 65.4% -d 55.2% respectively. SRs conducted by the Cochrane Collaboration scored higher on AMSTAR-2 compared to non-Cochrane (z = -4.41, P <.01) and a positive correlation between PRISMA and AMSTAR-2 scores (r = 0.56, P <.001) was determined. CONCLUSION: Our study indicated the quality of SRs used to develop AUA CPGs across both PRISMA and AMSTAR-2 was variable. Despite higher evaluations, Cochrane SRs accounted for less than 15% of SRs underpinning CPG recommendations. Given the importance placed on CPGs within clinical practice, we recommended a synergistic relationship between the AUA and the Cochrane Collaboration to increase the number of quality urologic SRs.

Perceptions and Opinions Towards Data-Sharing: A Survey of Addiction Journal Editorial Board Members.

Background: We surveyed addiction journal editorial board members to better understand their opinions towards data-sharing. Methods: Survey items consisted of Likert-type (e.g., one to five scale), multiple-choice, and free-response questions. Journal websites were searched for names and email addresses. Emails were distributed using SurveyMonkey. Descriptive statistics were used to characterize the responses. Results: We received 178 responses (of 1039; 17.1%). Of these, 174 individuals agreed to participate in our study (97.8%). Most respondents did not know whether their journal had a data-sharing policy. Board members "somewhat agree" that addiction journals should recommend but not require data-sharing for submitted manuscripts [M=4.09 (SD=0.06); 95% CI: 3.97-4.22]. Items with the highest perceived benefit ratings were "secondary data use (e.g., meta-analysis)" [M=3.44 (SD=0.06); 95% CI: 3.31-3.56] and "increased transparency" [M=3.29 (SD=0.07); 95% CI: 3.14-3.43]. Items perceived to be the greatest barrier to data-sharing included "lack of metadata standards" [M=3.21 (SD=0.08); 95% CI: 3.06-3.36], "no incentive" [M=3.43 (SD=0.07); 95% CI: 3.30-3.57], "inadequate resources" [M=3.53 (SD=0.05); 95% CI: 3.42-3.63], and "protection of privacy"[M=3.22 (SD=0.07); 95% CI: 3.07-3.36]. Conclusion: Our results suggest addiction journal editorial board members believe data-sharing has a level of importance within the research community. However, most board members are unaware of their journals' data-sharing policies, and most data-sharing should be recommended but not required. Future efforts aimed at better understanding common reservations and benefits towards data-sharing, as well as avenues to optimize data-sharing while minimizing potential risks, are warranted.

Complication and revision rates after reverse total shoulder revision from hemiarthroplasty: a systematic review.

Background: Thus, the purpose of the present study was to (1) characterize common postoperative complications and (2) quantify the rates of revision in patients undergoing hemiarthroplasty to reverse total shoulder arthroplasty revisional surgery. We hypothesize that hardware loosenings will be the most common complication to occur in the sample, with the humeral component being the most common loosening. Methods: This systematic review adhered to PRISMA reporting guideline. For our inclusion criteria, we included any study that contained intraoperative and/or postoperative complication data, and revision rates on patients who had undergone revision reverse total shoulder arthroplasty due to a failed hemiarthroplasty. Complications include neurologic injury, deep surgical site infections, hardware loosening/prosthetic instability, and postoperative fractures (acromion, glenoid, and humeral fractures). Results: The study contained 22 studies that assessed complications from shoulders that had revision reverse total shoulder arthroplasty from a hemiarthroplasty, with a total sample of 925 shoulders. We found that the most common complication to occur was hardware loosenings (5.3%), and of the hardware loosenings, humeral loosenings (3.8%) were the most common. The revision rate was found to be 10.7%. Conclusion: This systematic review found that revision reverse total shoulder arthroplasty for failed hemiarthroplasty has a high overall complication and reintervention rates, specifically for hardware loosening and revision rates.

An analysis of the evidence underpinning the national comprehensive cancer network practice guidelines.

OBJECTIVE: This study assesses the quality and completeness of systematic reviews (SRs) included by the National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN) cancer screening clinical practice guidelines (CPGs). METHODS: We evaluated SRs according to PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses) and AMSTAR-2 (A Measurement Tool to Assess systematic Reviews). RESULTS: Seven NCCN CPGs were included with 109 SRs. The mean PRISMA percent completeness of included SRs was 71 % (range 0.1-1.0). The mean AMSTAR-2 percent completeness was 56 % (range 0.05-0.99). Of the 70 SRs assessed via AMSTAR-2, 42 (60 %) received a "critically low" rating, 11 (15.7 %) received "low" ratings, and 17 (24.3 %) received "moderate". None of the SRs received a "high" rating. CONCLUSION: Lack of adherence to AMSTAR-2 and PRISMA reporting standards among the SRs included is prevalent. We suggest improved reporting of SR inclusion criteria and evaluation to bolster the reporting quality of SRs underpinning CPG recommendations.