Assessing the methodological and reporting quality of network meta-analyses in Chinese medicine.

BACKGROUND: An increasing number of network meta-analyses (NMAs) in traditional Chinese medicine (TCM) have been published recently, but the quality of them was lack of assessment. This study aims to evaluate the methodological and reporting quality of NMAs in TCM. METHODS: Six electronic databases, including PubMed, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), Embase, China National Knowledge Infrastructure (CNKI), Wanfang and Chinese Biomedical Literature Database (CBM) from inception to January 2018, were searched. NMAs of TCM were included. A measurement tool to assess the methodological quality of systematic reviews (AMSTAR) and the PRISMA Extension Statement for Reporting of Systematic Reviews Incorporating Network Meta-analyses of Health Care Interventions (PRISMA-NMA) were used to assess the methodological and reporting quality of the included NMAs. RESULTS: A total of 40 NMAs, including 2535 randomized controlled trials (RCTs), were included. They were published between December 2012 and November 2017. The median score and interquartile range of methodological and reporting quality was 7 (6-8) and 22 (19.1-27.1). Serious methodological flaws existed in the following aspects: the status of publication (22.5%), a list of studies provided (0%), assessment of publication bias (37.5%), and conflicts of interest (12.5%). Several items need to be improved in reporting, especially for Protocol and registration (2.5%), Data items (22.5%), Risk of bias across studies (Methods section) (37.5%), Results of individual studies (27.5%), Risk of bias across studies (Results section) (40%), Results of additional analyses (35%), and Funding (15%). CONCLUSIONS: The methodological and reporting quality of NMAs in TCM is moderate. Identified shortcomings of published NMAs should be taken into consideration in further trainings of authors and editors of NMAs in TCM. Future researchers should be encouraged to apply PRISMA-NMA, and a recognized tool for the assessment of NMA methodology was wanted.

Understanding ACGME Scholarly Activity Requirements for General Surgery Programs in the Era of Single Accreditation and the Next Accreditation System.

Becoming compliant with the Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education (ACGME) requirements for scholarly activity and remaining compliant over time requires time and attention to the development of an environment of inquiry, which is reflected in detailed documentation submitted in program applications and annual updates. Since the beginning of the next accreditation system, all ACGME programs have been required to submit evidence of scholarly activity of both residents and faculty on an annual basis. Since 2014, American Osteopathic Association-accredited programs have been able to apply for ACGME accreditation under the Single Graduate Medical Education Accreditation initiative. The Residency Program Director, Chair, Designated Institutional Official, Faculty, and coordinator need to work cohesively to ensure compliance with all program requirements, including scholarly activity in order for American Osteopathic Association-accredited programs to receive Initial ACGME Accreditation and for current ACGME-accredited programs to maintain accreditation. Fortunately, there are many ways to show the type of scholarly activity that is required for the training of surgeons. In this article, we will review the ACGME General Surgery Program Requirements and definitions of scholarly activity. We will also offer suggestions for how programs may show evidence of scholarly activity.

Evaluation of the national cancer program and proposed reforms.

A statement by 68 prominent national experts in cancer prevention, carcinogenesis, epidemiology, and public health, released at a February 4, 1992, press conference in Washington, D.C., charged that the National Cancer Institute (NCI) has misled and confused the public by repeated claims of winning the war against cancer. In fact, age-standardized incidence rates have escalated to epidemic proportions over recent decades, while the ability to treat and cure most cancers has not materially improved. Furthermore, the NCI has minimized evidence for increasing cancer rates, which are largely attributed to smoking, trivializing the importance of occupational carcinogens as non-smoking attributable causes of lung and other cancers, and to diet per se, in spite of tenuous and inconsistent evidence and ignoring the important role of carcinogenic dietary contaminants. Reflecting this near exclusionary blame-the-victim theory of cancer causation, with lockstep support from the American Cancer Society and industry, the NCI discounts the role of avoidable involuntary exposures to industrial carcinogens in air, water, food, the home, and the workplace. The NCI has also failed to provide any scientific guidance to Congress and regulatory agencies on fundament principles of carcinogenesis and epidemiology, and on the critical needs to reduce avoidable exposures to environmental and occupational carcinogens. Analysis of the +2 billion NCI budget, in spite of fiscal and semantic manipulation, reveals minimal allocations for research on primary cancer prevention, and for occupational cancer, which receives only +19 million annually, 1 percent of NCI's total budget. Problems of professional mindsets in the NCI leadership, fixation on diagnosis, treatment, and basic research, much of questionable relevance, and the neglect of cancer prevention, are exemplified by the composition of the National Cancer Advisory Board. Contrary to the explicit mandate of the National Cancer Act, the Board is devoid of members authoritative in occupational and environmental carcinogenesis. These problems are further compounded by institutionalized conflicts of interest reflected in the composition of past executive President's Cancer Panels, and of the current Board of Overseers of the Sloan-Kettering Memorial Cancer Center, the NCI's prototype comprehensive cancer center, with their closely interlocking financial interests with the cancer drug and other industries. Drastic reforms of NCI policies and priorities are long overdue. Implementation of such reforms is, however, unlikely in the absence of further support from industrial medicine professionals, besides action by Congress and concerned citizen groups.

Hospice research: the importance of program participation.

Hospice research is needed in order to understand the complex phenomena of holistic care for terminally ill persons and their families. Hospice program participation is key to future hospice research efforts. The purpose of this article is to encourage hospice programs to participate in hospice research. The discussion includes why research is done, who undertakes a research project, the role of institutional review boards in assuring rights of human subjects and potential strategies for recruitment of research subjects. The authors use their experiences with conducting hospice research to illustrate potential recruitment strategies.