Toward more rigorous and informative nutritional epidemiology: The rational space between dismissal and defense of the status quo.

To date, nutritional epidemiology has relied heavily on relatively weak methods including simple observational designs and substandard measurements. Despite low internal validity and other sources of bias, claims of causality are made commonly in this literature. Nutritional epidemiology investigations can be improved through greater scientific rigor and adherence to scientific reporting commensurate with research methods used. Some commentators advocate jettisoning nutritional epidemiology entirely, perhaps believing improvements are impossible. Still others support only normative refinements. But neither abolition nor minor tweaks are appropriate. Nutritional epidemiology, in its present state, offers utility, yet also needs marked, reformational renovation. Changing the status quo will require ongoing, unflinching scrutiny of research questions, practices, and reporting-and a willingness to admit that "good enough" is no longer good enough. As such, a workshop entitled "Toward more rigorous and informative nutritional epidemiology: the rational space between dismissal and defense of the status quo" was held from July 15 to August 14, 2020. This virtual symposium focused on: (1) Stronger Designs, (2) Stronger Measurement, (3) Stronger Analyses, and (4) Stronger Execution and Reporting. Participants from several leading academic institutions explored existing, evolving, and new better practices, tools, and techniques to collaboratively advance specific recommendations for strengthening nutritional epidemiology.

Zinc supplementation for preventing mortality, morbidity, and growth failure in children aged 6 months to 12 years.

BACKGROUND: Zinc deficiency is prevalent in low- and middle-income countries, and is considered a significant risk factor for morbidity, mortality, and linear growth failure. The effectiveness of preventive zinc supplementation in reducing prevalence of zinc deficiency needs to be assessed. OBJECTIVES: To assess the effects of zinc supplementation for preventing mortality and morbidity, and for promoting growth, in children aged 6 months to 12 years. SEARCH METHODS: A previous version of this review was published in 2014. In this update, we searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, five other databases, and one trials register up to February 2022, together with reference checking and contact with study authors to identify additional studies. SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) of preventive zinc supplementation in children aged 6 months to 12 years compared with no intervention, a placebo, or a waiting list control. We excluded hospitalized children and children with chronic diseases or conditions. We excluded food fortification or intake, sprinkles, and therapeutic interventions. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors screened studies, extracted data, and assessed the risk of bias. We contacted study authors for missing information and used GRADE to assess the certainty of evidence. The primary outcomes of this review were all-cause mortality; and cause-specific mortality, due to all-cause diarrhea, lower respiratory tract infection (LRTI, including pneumonia), and malaria. We also collected information on a number of secondary outcomes, such as those related to diarrhea and LRTI morbidity, growth outcomes and serum levels of micronutrients, and adverse events. MAIN RESULTS: We included 16 new studies in this review, resulting in a total of 96 RCTs with 219,584 eligible participants. The included studies were conducted in 34 countries; 87 of them in low- or middle-income countries. Most of the children included in this review were under five years of age. The intervention was delivered most commonly in the form of syrup as zinc sulfate, and the most common dose was between 10 mg and 15 mg daily. The median duration of follow-up was 26 weeks. We did not consider that the evidence for the key analyses of morbidity and mortality outcomes was affected by risk of bias. High-certainty evidence showed little to no difference in all-cause mortality with preventive zinc supplementation compared to no zinc (risk ratio (RR) 0.93, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.84 to 1.03; 16 studies, 17 comparisons, 143,474 participants). Moderate-certainty evidence showed that preventive zinc supplementation compared to no zinc likely results in little to no difference in mortality due to all-cause diarrhea (RR 0.95, 95% CI 0.69 to 1.31; 4 studies, 132,321 participants); but probably reduces mortality due to LRTI (RR 0.86, 95% CI 0.64 to 1.15; 3 studies, 132,063 participants) and mortality due to malaria (RR 0.90, 95% CI 0.77 to 1.06; 2 studies, 42,818 participants); however, the confidence intervals around the summary estimates for these outcomes were wide, and we could not rule out a possibility of increased risk of mortality. Preventive zinc supplementation likely reduces the incidence of all-cause diarrhea (RR 0.91, 95% CI 0.90 to 0.93; 39 studies, 19,468 participants; moderate-certainty evidence) but results in little to no difference in morbidity due to LRTI (RR 1.01, 95% CI 0.95 to 1.08; 19 studies, 10,555 participants; high-certainty evidence) compared to no zinc. There was moderate-certainty evidence that preventive zinc supplementation likely leads to a slight increase in height (standardized mean difference (SMD) 0.12, 95% CI 0.09 to 0.14; 74 studies, 20,720 participants). Zinc supplementation was associated with an increase in the number of participants with at least one vomiting episode (RR 1.29, 95% CI 1.14 to 1.46; 5 studies, 35,192 participants; high-certainty evidence). We report a number of other outcomes, including the effect of zinc supplementation on weight and serum markers such as zinc, hemoglobin, iron, copper, etc. We also performed a number of subgroup analyses and there was a consistent finding for a number of outcomes that co-supplementation of zinc with iron decreased the beneficial effect of zinc. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Even though we included 16 new studies in this update, the overall conclusions of the review remain unchanged. Zinc supplementation might help prevent episodes of diarrhea and improve growth slightly, particularly in children aged 6 months to 12 years of age. The benefits of preventive zinc supplementation may outweigh the harms in regions where the risk of zinc deficiency is relatively high.

Open Science Standards at Journals that Inform Evidence-Based Policy.

Evidence-based policy uses intervention research to inform consequential decisions about resource allocation. Research findings are often published in peer-reviewed journals. Because detrimental research practices associated with closed science are common, journal articles report more false-positives and exaggerated effect sizes than would be desirable. Journal implementation of standards that promote open science-such as the transparency and openness promotion (TOP) guidelines-could reduce detrimental research practices and improve the trustworthiness of research evidence on intervention effectiveness. We evaluated TOP implementation at 339 peer-reviewed journals that have been used to identify evidence-based interventions for policymaking and programmatic decisions. Each of ten open science standards in TOP was not implemented in most journals' policies (instructions to authors), procedures (manuscript submission systems), or practices (published articles). Journals implementing at least one standard typically encouraged, but did not require, an open science practice. We discuss why and how journals could improve implementation of open science standards to safeguard evidence-based policy.

Comparing the Value of Data Visualization Methods for Communicating Harms in Clinical Trials.

In clinical trials, harms (i.e., adverse events) are often reported by simply counting the number of people who experienced each event. Reporting only frequencies ignores other dimensions of the data that are important for stakeholders, including severity, seriousness, rate (recurrence), timing, and groups of related harms. Additionally, application of selection criteria to harms prevents most from being reported. Visualization of data could improve communication of multidimensional data. We replicated and compared the characteristics of 6 different approaches for visualizing harms: dot plot, stacked bar chart, volcano plot, heat map, treemap, and tendril plot. We considered binary events using individual participant data from a randomized trial of gabapentin for neuropathic pain. We assessed their value using a heuristic approach and a group of content experts. We produced all figures using R and share the open-source code on GitHub. Most original visualizations propose presenting individual harms (e.g., dizziness, somnolence) alone or alongside higher level (e.g., by body systems) summaries of harms, although they could be applied at either level. Visualizations can present different dimensions of all harms observed in trials. Except for the tendril plot, all other plots do not require individual participant data. The dot plot and volcano plot are favored as visualization approaches to present an overall summary of harms data. Our value assessment found the dot plot and volcano plot were favored by content experts. Using visualizations to report harms could improve communication. Trialists can use our provided code to easily implement these approaches.

Vitamin A supplementation for preventing morbidity and mortality in children from six months to five years of age.

BACKGROUND: Vitamin A deficiency (VAD) is a major public health problem in low- and middle-income countries, affecting 190 million children under five years of age and leading to many adverse health consequences, including death. Based on prior evidence and a previous version of this review, the World Health Organization has continued to recommend vitamin A supplementation (VAS) for children aged 6 to 59 months. The last version of this review was published in 2017, and this is an updated version of that review. OBJECTIVES: To assess the effects of vitamin A supplementation (VAS) for preventing morbidity and mortality in children aged six months to five years. SEARCH METHODS: We searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, six other databases, and two trials registers up to March 2021. We also checked reference lists and contacted relevant organisations and researchers to identify additional studies. SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and cluster-RCTs evaluating the effect of synthetic VAS in children aged six months to five years living in the community. We excluded studies involving children in hospital and children with disease or infection. We also excluded studies evaluating the effects of food fortification, consumption of vitamin A rich foods, or beta-carotene supplementation. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: For this update, two review authors independently assessed studies for inclusion resolving discrepancies by discussion. We performed meta-analyses for outcomes, including all-cause and cause-specific mortality, disease, vision, and side effects. We used the GRADE approach to assess the quality of the evidence. MAIN RESULTS: The updated search identified no new RCTs. We identified 47 studies, involving approximately 1,223,856 children. Studies were set in 19 countries: 30 (63%) in Asia, 16 of these in India; 8 (17%) in Africa; 7 (15%) in Latin America, and 2 (4%) in Australia. About one-third of the studies were in urban/periurban settings, and half were in rural settings; the remaining studies did not clearly report settings. Most studies included equal numbers of girls and boys and lasted about one year. The mean age of the children was about 33 months. The included studies were at variable overall risk of bias; however, evidence for the primary outcome was at low risk of bias. A meta-analysis for all-cause mortality included 19 trials (1,202,382 children). At longest follow-up, there was a 12% observed reduction in the risk of all-cause mortality for VAS compared with control using a fixed-effect model (risk ratio (RR) 0.88, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.83 to 0.93; high-certainty evidence). Nine trials reported mortality due to diarrhoea and showed a 12% overall reduction for VAS (RR 0.88, 95% CI 0.79 to 0.98; 1,098,538 children; high-certainty evidence). There was no evidence of a difference for VAS on mortality due to measles (RR 0.88, 95% CI 0.69 to 1.11; 6 studies, 1,088,261 children; low-certainty evidence), respiratory disease (RR 0.98, 95% CI 0.86 to 1.12; 9 studies, 1,098,538 children; low-certainty evidence), and meningitis. VAS reduced the incidence of diarrhoea (RR 0.85, 95% CI 0.82 to 0.87; 15 studies, 77,946 children; low-certainty evidence), measles (RR 0.50, 95% CI 0.37 to 0.67; 6 studies, 19,566 children; moderate-certainty evidence), Bitot's spots (RR 0.42, 95% CI 0.33 to 0.53; 5 studies, 1,063,278 children; moderate-certainty evidence), night blindness (RR 0.32, 95% CI 0.21 to 0.50; 2 studies, 22,972 children; moderate-certainty evidence), and VAD (RR 0.71, 95% CI 0.65 to 0.78; 4 studies, 2262 children, moderate-certainty evidence). However, there was no evidence of a difference on incidence of respiratory disease (RR 0.99, 95% CI 0.92 to 1.06; 11 studies, 27,540 children; low-certainty evidence) or hospitalisations due to diarrhoea or pneumonia. There was an increased risk of vomiting within the first 48 hours of VAS (RR 1.97, 95% CI 1.44 to 2.69; 4 studies, 10,541 children; moderate-certainty evidence). AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: This update identified no new eligible studies and the conclusions remain the same. VAS is associated with a clinically meaningful reduction in morbidity and mortality in children. Further placebo-controlled trials of VAS in children between six months and five years of age would not change the conclusions of this review, although studies that compare different doses and delivery mechanisms are needed. In populations with documented VAD, it would be unethical to conduct placebo-controlled trials.

Clearinghouse Standards of Evidence on the Transparency, Openness, and Reproducibility of Intervention Evaluations.

Clearinghouses are influential repositories of information on the effectiveness of social interventions. To identify which interventions are "evidence-based," clearinghouses review intervention evaluations using published standards of evidence that focus primarily on internal validity and causal inferences. Open science practices can improve trust in evidence from evaluations on the effectiveness of social interventions. Including open science practices in clearinghouse standards of evidence is one of many efforts that could increase confidence in designations of interventions as "evidence-based." In this study, we examined the policies, procedures, and practices of 10 federal evidence clearinghouses that review preventive interventions-an important and influential subset of all evidence clearinghouses. We found that seven consider at least one open science practice when evaluating interventions: replication (6 of 10 clearinghouses), public availability of results (6), investigator conflicts of interest (3), design and analysis transparency (3), study registration (2), and protocol sharing (1). We did not identify any policies, procedures, or practices related to analysis plan registration, data sharing, code sharing, material sharing, and citation standards. We provide a framework with specific recommendations to help federal and other evidence clearinghouses implement the Transparency and Openness Promotion (TOP) Guidelines. Our proposed "TOP Guidelines for Clearinghouses" includes reporting whether evaluations used open science practices, incorporating open science practices in their standards for receiving "evidence-based" designations, and verifying that evaluations used open science practices. Doing so could increase the trustworthiness of evidence used for policy making and support improvements throughout the evidence ecosystem.

Modern Meta-Analytic Methods in Prevention Science: Introduction to the Special Issue.

Meta-analyses that statistically synthesize evidence from multiple research studies can play an important role in advancing evidence-informed prevention science. When done in the context of a well-conducted systematic review, meta-analysis is a powerful tool for synthesizing evidence and exploring research questions that are difficult to address in individual studies, such as the association of individual study limitations on intervention effect estimates, replicability of empirical findings, and variation of effect estimates across populations and settings. Alongside the rapid growth in the number of published reviews and meta-analyses, there has been a parallel growth in the development of meta-analytic techniques to handle the increasingly complex types of questions and types of evidence relevant to prevention science. Despite this rapid evolution of meta-analytic techniques and approaches, there is still a lag between the development of new techniques and their uptake by researchers in the field. This paper serves as a brief introduction to this special issue of Prevention Science, entitled "Modern Meta-Analytic Methods in Prevention Science," which highlights recent developments in meta-analytic methods and demonstrates their application to prevention research. This special issue makes an important contribution to the field by ensuring these methodological advances are widely accessible to prevention science researchers, thereby improving their uptake and utilization, and ultimately improving the utility and rigor of research syntheses for informing evidence-based decision making in prevention.

Transparent, Open, and Reproducible Prevention Science.

The field of prevention science aims to understand societal problems, identify effective interventions, and translate scientific evidence into policy and practice. There is growing interest among prevention scientists in the potential for transparency, openness, and reproducibility to facilitate this mission by providing opportunities to align scientific practice with scientific ideals, accelerate scientific discovery, and broaden access to scientific knowledge. The overarching goal of this manuscript is to serve as a primer introducing and providing an overview of open science for prevention researchers. In this paper, we discuss factors motivating interest in transparency and reproducibility, research practices associated with open science, and stakeholders engaged in and impacted by open science reform efforts. In addition, we discuss how and why different types of prevention research could incorporate open science practices, as well as ways that prevention science tools and methods could be leveraged to advance the wider open science movement. To promote further discussion, we conclude with potential reservations and challenges for the field of prevention science to address as it transitions to greater transparency, openness, and reproducibility. Throughout, we identify activities that aim to strengthen the reliability and efficiency of prevention science, facilitate access to its products and outputs, and promote collaborative and inclusive participation in research activities. By embracing principles of transparency, openness, and reproducibility, prevention science can better achieve its mission to advance evidence-based solutions to promote individual and collective well-being.

[The PRISMA 2020 statement: an updated guideline for reporting systematic reviewsDeclaración PRISMA 2020: una guía actualizada para la publicación de revisiones sistemáticas]. / A declaração PRISMA 2020: diretriz atualizada para relatar revisões sistemáticas.

The Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) statement, published in 2009, was designed to help systematic reviewers transparently report why the review was done, what the authors did, and what they found. Over the past decade, advances in systematic review methodology and terminology have necessitated an update to the guideline. The PRISMA 2020 statement replaces the 2009 statement and includes new reporting guidance that reflects advances in methods to identify, select, appraise, and synthesise studies. The structure and presentation of the items have been modified to facilitate implementation. In this article, we present the PRISMA 2020 27-item checklist, an expanded checklist that details reporting recommendations for each item, the PRISMA 2020 abstract checklist, and the revised flow diagrams for original and updated reviews.

La declaración PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analyses), publicada en 2009, se diseñó para ayudar a los autores de revisiones sistemáticas a documentar de manera transparente el porqué de la revisión, qué hicieron los autores y qué encontraron. Durante la última década, ha habido muchos avances en la metodología y terminología de las revisiones sistemáticas, lo que ha requerido una actualización de esta guía. La declaración PRISMA 2020 sustituye a la declaración de 2009 e incluye una nueva guía de presentación de las publicaciones que refleja los avances en los métodos para identificar, seleccionar, evaluar y sintetizar estudios. La estructura y la presentación de los ítems ha sido modificada para facilitar su implementación. En este artículo, presentamos la lista de verificación PRISMA 2020 con 27 ítems, y una lista de verificación ampliada que detalla las recomendaciones en la publicación de cada ítem, la lista de verificación del resumen estructurado PRISMA 2020 y el diagrama de flujo revisado para revisiones sistemáticas.

Guidelines for Reporting Outcomes in Trial Reports: The CONSORT-Outcomes 2022 Extension.

Importance: Clinicians, patients, and policy makers rely on published results from clinical trials to help make evidence-informed decisions. To critically evaluate and use trial results, readers require complete and transparent information regarding what was planned, done, and found. Specific and harmonized guidance as to what outcome-specific information should be reported in publications of clinical trials is needed to reduce deficient reporting practices that obscure issues with outcome selection, assessment, and analysis. Objective: To develop harmonized, evidence- and consensus-based standards for reporting outcomes in clinical trial reports through integration with the Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials (CONSORT) 2010 statement. Evidence Review: Using the Enhancing the Quality and Transparency of Health Research (EQUATOR) methodological framework, the CONSORT-Outcomes 2022 extension of the CONSORT 2010 statement was developed by (1) generation and evaluation of candidate outcome reporting items via consultation with experts and a scoping review of existing guidance for reporting trial outcomes (published within the 10 years prior to March 19, 2018) identified through expert solicitation, electronic database searches of MEDLINE and the Cochrane Methodology Register, gray literature searches, and reference list searches; (2) a 3-round international Delphi voting process (November 2018-February 2019) completed by 124 panelists from 22 countries to rate and identify additional items; and (3) an in-person consensus meeting (April 9-10, 2019) attended by 25 panelists to identify essential items for the reporting of outcomes in clinical trial reports. Findings: The scoping review and consultation with experts identified 128 recommendations relevant to reporting outcomes in trial reports, the majority (83%) of which were not included in the CONSORT 2010 statement. All recommendations were consolidated into 64 items for Delphi voting; after the Delphi survey process, 30 items met criteria for further evaluation at the consensus meeting and possible inclusion in the CONSORT-Outcomes 2022 extension. The discussions during and after the consensus meeting yielded 17 items that elaborate on the CONSORT 2010 statement checklist items and are related to completely defining and justifying the trial outcomes, including how and when they were assessed (CONSORT 2010 statement checklist item 6a), defining and justifying the target difference between treatment groups during sample size calculations (CONSORT 2010 statement checklist item 7a), describing the statistical methods used to compare groups for the primary and secondary outcomes (CONSORT 2010 statement checklist item 12a), and describing the prespecified analyses and any outcome analyses not prespecified (CONSORT 2010 statement checklist item 18). Conclusions and Relevance: This CONSORT-Outcomes 2022 extension of the CONSORT 2010 statement provides 17 outcome-specific items that should be addressed in all published clinical trial reports and may help increase trial utility, replicability, and transparency and may minimize the risk of selective nonreporting of trial results.

Guidelines for Reporting Outcomes in Trial Protocols: The SPIRIT-Outcomes 2022 Extension.

Importance: Complete information in a trial protocol regarding study outcomes is crucial for obtaining regulatory approvals, ensuring standardized trial conduct, reducing research waste, and providing transparency of methods to facilitate trial replication, critical appraisal, accurate reporting and interpretation of trial results, and knowledge synthesis. However, recommendations on what outcome-specific information should be included are diverse and inconsistent. To improve reporting practices promoting transparent and reproducible outcome selection, assessment, and analysis, a need for specific and harmonized guidance as to what outcome-specific information should be addressed in clinical trial protocols exists. Objective: To develop harmonized, evidence- and consensus-based standards for describing outcomes in clinical trial protocols through integration with the Standard Protocol Items: Recommendations for Interventional Trials (SPIRIT) 2013 statement. Evidence Review: Using the Enhancing the Quality and Transparency of Health Research (EQUATOR) methodological framework, the SPIRIT-Outcomes 2022 extension of the SPIRIT 2013 statement was developed by (1) generation and evaluation of candidate outcome reporting items via consultation with experts and a scoping review of existing guidance for reporting trial outcomes (published within the 10 years prior to March 19, 2018) identified through expert solicitation, electronic database searches of MEDLINE and the Cochrane Methodology Register, gray literature searches, and reference list searches; (2) a 3-round international Delphi voting process (November 2018-February 2019) completed by 124 panelists from 22 countries to rate and identify additional items; and (3) an in-person consensus meeting (April 9-10, 2019) attended by 25 panelists to identify essential items for outcome-specific reporting to be addressed in clinical trial protocols. Findings: The scoping review and consultation with experts identified 108 recommendations relevant to outcome-specific reporting to be addressed in trial protocols, the majority (72%) of which were not included in the SPIRIT 2013 statement. All recommendations were consolidated into 56 items for Delphi voting; after the Delphi survey process, 19 items met criteria for further evaluation at the consensus meeting and possible inclusion in the SPIRIT-Outcomes 2022 extension. The discussions during and after the consensus meeting yielded 9 items that elaborate on the SPIRIT 2013 statement checklist items and are related to completely defining and justifying the choice of primary, secondary, and other outcomes (SPIRIT 2013 statement checklist item 12) prospectively in the trial protocol, defining and justifying the target difference between treatment groups for the primary outcome used in the sample size calculations (SPIRIT 2013 statement checklist item 14), describing the responsiveness of the study instruments used to assess the outcome and providing details on the outcome assessors (SPIRIT 2013 statement checklist item 18a), and describing any planned methods to account for multiplicity relating to the analyses or interpretation of the results (SPIRIT 2013 statement checklist item 20a). Conclusions and Relevance: This SPIRIT-Outcomes 2022 extension of the SPIRIT 2013 statement provides 9 outcome-specific items that should be addressed in all trial protocols and may help increase trial utility, replicability, and transparency and may minimize the risk of selective nonreporting of trial results.

The PRISMA 2020 statement: An updated guideline for reporting systematic reviews.

Matthew Page and co-authors describe PRISMA 2020, an updated reporting guideline for systematic reviews and meta-analyses.

Data management in substance use disorder treatment research: Implications from data harmonization of National Institute on Drug Abuse-funded randomized controlled trials.

BACKGROUND: Secondary analysis of data from completed randomized controlled trials is a critical and efficient way to maximize the potential benefits from past research. De-identified primary data from completed randomized controlled trials have been increasingly available in recent years; however, the lack of standardized data products is a major barrier to further use of these valuable data. Pre-statistical harmonization of data structure, variables, and codebooks across randomized controlled trials would facilitate secondary data analysis, including meta-analyses and comparative effectiveness studies. We describe a pre-statistical data harmonization initiative to standardize de-identified primary data from substance use disorder treatment randomized controlled trials funded by the National Institute on Drug Abuse available on the National Institute on Drug Abuse Data Share website. METHODS: Standardized datasets and codebooks with consistent data structures, variable names, labels, and definitions were developed for 36 completed randomized controlled trials. Common data domains were identified to bundle data files from individual randomized controlled trials according to relevant concepts. Variables were harmonized if at least two randomized controlled trials used the same instruments. The structures of the harmonized data were determined based on the feedback from clinical trialists and substance use disorder research experts. RESULTS: We have created a harmonized database of variables across 36 randomized controlled trials with a build-in label and a brief definition for each variable. Data files from the randomized controlled trials have been consistently categorized into eight domains (enrollment, demographics, adherence, adverse events, physical health measures, mental-behavioral-cognitive health measures, self-reported substance use measures, and biologic substance use measures). Standardized codebooks and concordance tables have also been developed to help identify instruments and variables of interest more easily. CONCLUSION: The harmonized data of randomized controlled trials of substance use disorder treatments can potentially promote future secondary data analysis of completed randomized controlled trials, allowing combining data from multiple randomized controlled trials and provide guidance for future randomized controlled trials in substance use disorder treatment research.

Standards for design and measurement would make clinical research reproducible and usable.

We find standards useful in everyday life and in science, although we do not always follow them. Adopting new standards can be expensive, so there may be a strong incentive to maintain the status quo rather than adopt new standards. The scientific community has many standards encompassing both doing clinical research and reporting it, including standards for design and measurement. Although existing research standards have improved both research and its reporting, we need to unify existing standards and to fill the gaps between steps throughout the research process. Existing gaps include implementation of standards and links between standards for study registration (to know about all studies undertaken), study protocols (to identify the preplanned study design and methods), data collection (to assess outcomes that are important and comparable across studies), dissemination of findings (to know the results of previous studies), data sharing (to make best use of existing data), and evidence synthesis (to draw appropriate conclusions from the body of evidence). The scientific community must work together to harmonize existing standards, to ensure that standards are kept up to date, to check that standards are followed, and to develop standards where they are still needed. A unified system of standards will make our work more reproducible.

Practical Guidance for Involving Stakeholders in Health Research.

Stakeholder engagement is increasingly common in health research, with protocols for engaging multiple stakeholder groups becoming normative in patient-centered outcomes research. Previous work has focused on identifying relevant stakeholder groups with whom to work and on working with stakeholders in evidence implementation. This paper draws on the expertise of a team from four countries-Canada, Australia, the UK, and the USA-to provide researchers with practical guidance for carrying out multi-stakeholder-engaged projects: we present a list of questions to assist in selecting appropriate roles and modes of engagement; we introduce a matrix to help summarize engagement activities; and we provide a list of online resources. This guidance, matrix, and list of resources can assist researchers to consider more systematically which stakeholder groups to involve, in what study roles, and by what modes of engagement. By documenting how stakeholders are paired up with specific roles, the matrix also provides a potential structure for evaluating the impact of stakeholder engagement.

Clinical trial registration and reporting: a survey of academic organizations in the United States.

BACKGROUND: Many clinical trials conducted by academic organizations are not published, or are not published completely. Following the US Food and Drug Administration Amendments Act of 2007, "The Final Rule" (compliance date April 18, 2017) and a National Institutes of Health policy clarified and expanded trial registration and results reporting requirements. We sought to identify policies, procedures, and resources to support trial registration and reporting at academic organizations. METHODS: We conducted an online survey from November 21, 2016 to March 1, 2017, before organizations were expected to comply with The Final Rule. We included active Protocol Registration and Results System (PRS) accounts classified by ClinicalTrials.gov as a "University/Organization" in the USA. PRS administrators manage information on ClinicalTrials.gov. We invited one PRS administrator to complete the survey for each organization account, which was the unit of analysis. RESULTS: Eligible organization accounts (N = 783) included 47,701 records (e.g., studies) in August 2016. Participating organizations (366/783; 47%) included 40,351/47,701 (85%) records. Compared with other organizations, Clinical and Translational Science Award (CTSA) holders, cancer centers, and large organizations were more likely to participate. A minority of accounts have a registration (156/366; 43%) or results reporting policy (129/366; 35%). Of those with policies, 15/156 (11%) and 49/156 (35%) reported that trials must be registered before institutional review board approval is granted or before beginning enrollment, respectively. Few organizations use computer software to monitor compliance (68/366; 19%). One organization had penalized an investigator for non-compliance. Among the 287/366 (78%) accounts reporting that they allocate staff to fulfill ClinicalTrials.gov registration and reporting requirements, the median number of full-time equivalent staff is 0.08 (interquartile range = 0.02-0.25). Because of non-response and social desirability, this could be a "best case" scenario. CONCLUSIONS: Before the compliance date for The Final Rule, some academic organizations had policies and resources that facilitate clinical trial registration and reporting. Most organizations appear to be unprepared to meet the new requirements. Organizations could enact the following: adopt policies that require trial registration and reporting, allocate resources (e.g., staff, software) to support registration and reporting, and ensure there are consequences for investigators who do not follow standards for clinical research.

Vitamin A supplementation for preventing morbidity and mortality in children from six months to five years of age.

BACKGROUND: Vitamin A deficiency (VAD) is a major public health problem in low- and middle-income countries, affecting 190 million children under five years of age and leading to many adverse health consequences, including death. Based on prior evidence and a previous version of this review, the World Health Organization has continued to recommend vitamin A supplementation for children aged 6 to 59 months. There are new data available from recently published randomised trials since the previous publication of this review in 2010, and this update incorporates this information and reviews the evidence. OBJECTIVES: To assess the effects of vitamin A supplementation (VAS) for preventing morbidity and mortality in children aged six months to five years. SEARCH METHODS: In March 2016 we searched CENTRAL, Ovid MEDLINE, Embase, six other databases, and two trials registers. We also checked reference lists and contacted relevant organisations and researchers to identify additional studies. SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and cluster-RCTs evaluating the effect of synthetic VAS in children aged six months to five years living in the community. We excluded studies involving children in hospital and children with disease or infection. We also excluded studies evaluating the effects of food fortification, consumption of vitamin A rich foods, or beta-carotene supplementation. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: For this update, two reviewers independently assessed studies for inclusion and abstracted data, resolving discrepancies by discussion. We performed meta-analyses for outcomes, including all-cause and cause-specific mortality, disease, vision, and side effects. We used the GRADE approach to assess the quality of the evidence. MAIN RESULTS: We identified 47 studies (4 of which are new to this review), involving approximately 1,223,856 children. Studies took place in 19 countries: 30 (63%) in Asia, 16 of these in India; 8 (17%) in Africa; 7 (15%) in Latin America, and 2 (4%) in Australia. About one-third of the studies were in urban/periurban settings, and half were in rural settings; the remaining studies did not clearly report settings. Most of the studies included equal numbers of girls and boys and lasted about a year. The included studies were at variable overall risk of bias; however, evidence for the primary outcome was at low risk of bias. A meta-analysis for all-cause mortality included 19 trials (1,202,382 children). At longest follow-up, there was a 12% observed reduction in the risk of all-cause mortality for vitamin A compared with control using a fixed-effect model (risk ratio (RR) 0.88, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.83 to 0.93; high-quality evidence). This result was sensitive to choice of model, and a random-effects meta-analysis showed a different summary estimate (24% reduction: RR 0.76, 95% CI 0.66 to 0.88); however, the confidence intervals overlapped with that of the fixed-effect model. Nine trials reported mortality due to diarrhoea and showed a 12% overall reduction for VAS (RR 0.88, 95% CI 0.79 to 0.98; 1,098,538 participants; high-quality evidence). There was no significant effect for VAS on mortality due to measles, respiratory disease, and meningitis. VAS reduced incidence of diarrhoea (RR 0.85, 95% CI 0.82 to 0.87; 15 studies; 77,946 participants; low-quality evidence) and measles (RR 0.50, 95% CI 0.37 to 0.67; 6 studies; 19,566 participants; moderate-quality evidence). However, there was no significant effect on incidence of respiratory disease or hospitalisations due to diarrhoea or pneumonia. There was an increased risk of vomiting within the first 48 hours of VAS (RR 1.97, 95% CI 1.44 to 2.69; 4 studies; 10,541 participants; moderate-quality evidence). AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Vitamin A supplementation is associated with a clinically meaningful reduction in morbidity and mortality in children. Therefore, we suggest maintaining the policy of universal supplementation for children under five years of age in populations at risk of VAD. Further placebo-controlled trials of VAS in children between six months and five years of age would not change the conclusions of this review, although studies that compare different doses and delivery mechanisms are needed. In populations with documented vitamin A deficiency, it would be unethical to conduct placebo-controlled trials.

The quality of systematic reviews about interventions for refractive error can be improved: a review of systematic reviews.

BACKGROUND: Systematic reviews should inform American Academy of Ophthalmology (AAO) Preferred Practice Pattern® (PPP) guidelines. The quality of systematic reviews related to the forthcoming Preferred Practice Pattern® guideline (PPP) Refractive Errors & Refractive Surgery is unknown. We sought to identify reliable systematic reviews to assist the AAO Refractive Errors & Refractive Surgery PPP. METHODS: Systematic reviews were eligible if they evaluated the effectiveness or safety of interventions included in the 2012 PPP Refractive Errors & Refractive Surgery. To identify potentially eligible systematic reviews, we searched the Cochrane Eyes and Vision United States Satellite database of systematic reviews. Two authors identified eligible reviews and abstracted information about the characteristics and quality of the reviews independently using the Systematic Review Data Repository. We classified systematic reviews as "reliable" when they (1) defined criteria for the selection of studies, (2) conducted comprehensive literature searches for eligible studies, (3) assessed the methodological quality (risk of bias) of the included studies, (4) used appropriate methods for meta-analyses (which we assessed only when meta-analyses were reported), (5) presented conclusions that were supported by the evidence provided in the review. RESULTS: We identified 124 systematic reviews related to refractive error; 39 met our eligibility criteria, of which we classified 11 to be reliable. Systematic reviews classified as unreliable did not define the criteria for selecting studies (5; 13%), did not assess methodological rigor (10; 26%), did not conduct comprehensive searches (17; 44%), or used inappropriate quantitative methods (3; 8%). The 11 reliable reviews were published between 2002 and 2016. They included 0 to 23 studies (median = 9) and analyzed 0 to 4696 participants (median = 666). Seven reliable reviews (64%) assessed surgical interventions. CONCLUSIONS: Most systematic reviews of interventions for refractive error are low methodological quality. Following widely accepted guidance, such as Cochrane or Institute of Medicine standards for conducting systematic reviews, would contribute to improved patient care and inform future research.

Psychological interventions for adults with bipolar disorder: systematic review and meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: Psychological interventions may be beneficial in bipolar disorder. AIMS: To evaluate the efficacy of psychological interventions for adults with bipolar disorder. METHOD: A systematic review of randomised controlled trials was conducted. Outcomes were meta-analysed using RevMan and confidence assessed using the GRADE method. RESULTS: We included 55 trials with 6010 participants. Moderate-quality evidence associated individual psychological interventions with reduced relapses at post-treatment (risk ratio (RR) = 0.66, 95% CI 0.48-0.92) and follow-up (RR = 0.74, 95% CI 0.63-0.87), and collaborative care with a reduction in hospital admissions (RR = 0.68, 95% CI 0.49-0.94). Low-quality evidence associated group interventions with fewer depression relapses at post-treatment and follow-up, and family psychoeducation with reduced symptoms of depression and mania. CONCLUSIONS: There is evidence that psychological interventions are effective for people with bipolar disorder. Much of the evidence was of low or very low quality thereby limiting our conclusions. Further research should identify the most effective (and cost-effective) interventions for each phase of this disorder.