Protocol for the development of a reporting guideline for umbrella reviews on epidemiological associations using cross-sectional, case-control and cohort studies: the Preferred Reporting Items for Umbrella Reviews of Cross-sectional, Case-control and Cohort studies (PRIUR-CCC).

INTRODUCTION: Observational studies are fraught with several biases including reverse causation and residual confounding. Overview of reviews of observational studies (ie, umbrella reviews) synthesise systematic reviews with or without meta-analyses of cross-sectional, case-control and cohort studies, and may also aid in the grading of the credibility of reported associations. The number of published umbrella reviews has been increasing. Recently, a reporting guideline for overviews of reviews of healthcare interventions (Preferred Reporting Items for Overviews of Reviews (PRIOR)) was published, but the field lacks reporting guidelines for umbrella reviews of observational studies. Our aim is to develop a reporting guideline for umbrella reviews on cross-sectional, case-control and cohort studies assessing epidemiological associations. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: We will adhere to established guidance and prepare a PRIOR extension for systematic reviews of cross-sectional, case-control and cohort studies testing epidemiological associations between an exposure and an outcome, namely Preferred Reporting Items for Umbrella Reviews of Cross-sectional, Case-control and Cohort studies (PRIUR-CCC). Step 1 will be the project launch to identify stakeholders. Step 2 will be a literature review of available guidance to conduct umbrella reviews. Step 3 will be an online Delphi study sampling 100 participants among authors and editors of umbrella reviews. Step 4 will encompass the finalisation of PRIUR-CCC statement, including a checklist, a flow diagram, explanation and elaboration document. Deliverables will be (i) identifying stakeholders to involve according to relevant expertise and end-user groups, with an equity, diversity and inclusion lens; (ii) completing a narrative review of methodological guidance on how to conduct umbrella reviews, a narrative review of methodology and reporting in published umbrella reviews and preparing an initial PRIUR-CCC checklist for Delphi study round 1; (iii) preparing a PRIUR-CCC checklist with guidance after Delphi study; (iv) publishing and disseminating PRIUR-CCC statement. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: PRIUR-CCC has been approved by The Ottawa Health Science Network Research Ethics Board and has obtained consent (20220639-01H). Participants to step 3 will give informed consent. PRIUR-CCC steps will be published in a peer-reviewed journal and will guide reporting of umbrella reviews on epidemiological associations.

Complementary, alternative, and integrative medicine researchers' practices and perceived barriers related to open science: An international, cross-sectional survey.

INTRODUCTION AND OBJECTIVE: Open science (OS) aims to make the dissemination of knowledge and the research process transparent and accessible to everyone. With the increasing popularity of complementary, alternative, and integrative medicine (CAIM), our goal was to explore what are CAIM researchers' practices and perceived barriers related to OS. METHODS: We conducted an anonymous online survey of researchers who published in journals listed in Scopus containing the words "complementary", "alternative", or "integrative" medicine in their names. We emailed 6040 researchers our purpose-built electronic survey after extracting their email address from one of their publications in our sample of journals. We questioned their familiarity with different OS concepts, along with their experiences and challenges engaging in these practices over the last 12 months. RESULTS: The survey was completed by 392 researchers (6.5% response rate, 97.1% completion rate). Most respondents were CAIM researchers familiar with the overall concept of OS, indicated by those actively publishing open access (OA) (n = 244, 76.0%), registering a study protocol (n = 148, 48.0%), and using reporting guidelines (n = 181, 59.0%) in the past 12 months. Preprinting, sharing raw data, and sharing study materials were less popular. A lack of funding was reported as the greatest barrier to publishing OA by most respondents (n = 252, 79.0%), and that additional funding is the most significant incentive in applying more OS practices to their research (n = 229,72.2%). With respect to preprinting barriers, 36.3% (n = 110) participants believed there are potential harms in sharing non-peer-reviewed work and 37.0% (n = 112) feared preprinting would reduce the likelihood of their manuscript being accepted by a journal. Respondents were also concerned about intellectual property control regarding sharing data (n = 94, 31.7%) and research study materials (n = 80, 28.7%). CONCLUSIONS: Although many participants were familiar with and practiced aspects of OS, many reported facing barriers relating to lack of funding to enable OS and perceived risks of revealing research ideas and data prior to publication. Future research should monitor the adoption and implementation of OS interventions in CAIM.

Key concepts in clinical epidemiology: research integrity definitions and challenges.

Research integrity is guided by a set of principles to ensure research reliability and rigor. It serves as a pillar to uphold society's trust in science and foster scientific progress. However, over the past 2 decades, a surge in research integrity concerns, including fraudulent research, reproducibility challenges, and questionable practices, has raised critical questions about the reliability of scientific outputs, particularly in biomedical research. In the biomedical sciences, any breaches in research integrity could potentially lead to a domino effect impacting patient care, medical interventions, and the broader implementation of healthcare policies. Addressing these breaches requires measures such as rigorous research methods, transparent reporting, and changing the research culture. Institutional support through clear guidelines, robust training, and mentorship is crucial to fostering a culture of research integrity. However, structural and institutional factors, including research incentives and recognition systems, play an important role in research behavior. Therefore, promoting research integrity demands a collective effort from all stakeholders to maintain public trust in the scientific community and ensure the reliability of science. Here we discuss some definitions and principles, the implications for biomedical sciences, and propose actionable steps to foster research integrity.

Cardiology researchers' practices and perceived barriers to open science: an international survey.

OBJECTIVE: Open science is a movement and set of practices to conduct research more transparently. Implementing open science will significantly improve public access and supports equity. It also has the potential to foster innovation and reduce duplication through data and materials sharing. Here, we survey an international group of researchers publishing in cardiovascular journals regarding their perceptions and practices related to open science. METHODS: We identified the top 100 'Cardiology and Cardiovascular Medicine' subject category journals from the SCImago journal ranking platform. This is a publicly available portal that draws from Scopus. We then extracted the corresponding author's name and email from all articles published in these journals between 1 March 2021 and 1 March 2022. Participants were sent a purpose-built survey about open science. The survey contained primarily multiple choice and scale-based questions for which we report count data and percentages. For the few text-based responses we conducted thematic content analysis. RESULTS: 198 participants responded to our survey. Participants had a mean response of 6.8 (N=197, SD=1.8) on a 9-point scale with endpoints, not at all familiar (1) and extremely familiar (9), when indicating how familiar they were with open science. When asked about where they obtained open science training, most participants indicated this was done on the job self-initiated while conducting research (n=103, 52%), or that they had no formal training with respect to open science (n=72, 36%). More than half of the participants indicated they would benefit from practical support from their institution on how to perform open science practices (N=106, 54%). A diversity of barriers to each of the open science practices presented to participants were acknowledged. Participants indicated that funding was the most essential incentive to adopt open science. CONCLUSIONS: It is clear that policy alone will not lead to the effective implementation of open science. This survey serves as a baseline for the cardiovascular research community's open science performance and perception and can be used to inform future interventions and monitoring.

Cross-Sectional Evaluation of Open Science Practices at Imaging Journals: A Meta-Research Study.

Objective: To evaluate open science policies of imaging journals, and compliance to these policies in published articles. Methods: From imaging journals listed we extracted open science policy details: protocol registration, reporting guidelines, funding, ethics and conflicts of interest (COI), data sharing, and open access publishing. The 10 most recently published studies from each journal were assessed to determine adherence to these policies. We calculated the proportion of open science policies into an Open Science Score (OSS) for all journals and articles. We evaluated relationships between OSS and journal/article level variables. Results: 82 journals/820 articles were included. The OSS of journals and articles was 58.3% and 31.8%, respectively. Of the journals, 65.9% had registration and 78.1% had reporting guideline policies. 79.3% of journals were members of COPE, 81.7% had plagiarism policies, 100% required disclosure of funding, and 97.6% required disclosure of COI and ethics approval. 81.7% had data sharing policies and 15.9% were fully open access. 7.8% of articles had a registered protocol, 8.4% followed a reporting guideline, 77.4% disclosed funding, 88.7% disclosed COI, and 85.6% reported ethics approval. 12.3% of articles shared their data. 51% of articles were available through open access or as a preprint. OSS was higher for journal with DOAJ membership (80% vs 54.2%; P < .0001). Impact factor was not correlated with journal OSS. Knowledge synthesis articles has a higher OSS scores (44.5%) than prospective/retrospective studies (32.6%, 30.0%, P < .0001). Conclusion: Imaging journals endorsed just over half of open science practices considered; however, the application of these practices at the article level was lower.

Knowledge and motivations of training in peer review: An international cross-sectional survey.

BACKGROUND: Despite having a crucial role in scholarly publishing, peer reviewers do not typically require any training. The purpose of this study was to conduct an international survey on the current perceptions and motivations of researchers regarding peer review training. METHODS: A cross-sectional online survey was conducted of biomedical researchers. A total of 2000 corresponding authors from 100 randomly selected medical journals were invited via email. Quantitative items were reported using frequencies and percentages or means and SE, as appropriate. A thematic content analysis was conducted for qualitative items in which two researchers independently assigned codes to the responses for each written-text question, and subsequently grouped the codes into themes. A descriptive definition of each category was then created and unique themes-as well as the number and frequency of codes within each theme-were reported. RESULTS: A total of 186 participants completed the survey of which 14 were excluded. The majority of participants indicated they were men (n = 97 of 170, 57.1%), independent researchers (n = 108 of 172, 62.8%), and primarily affiliated with an academic organization (n = 103 of 170, 62.8%). A total of 144 of 171 participants (84.2%) indicated they had never received formal training in peer review. Most participants (n = 128, 75.7%) agreed-of which 41 (32.0%) agreed strongly-that peer reviewers should receive formal training in peer review prior to acting as a peer reviewer. The most preferred training formats were online courses, online lectures, and online modules. Most respondents (n = 111 of 147, 75.5%) stated that difficulty finding and/or accessing training was a barrier to completing training in peer review. CONCLUSION: Despite being desired, most biomedical researchers have not received formal training in peer review and indicated that training was difficult to access or not available.

Limited online training opportunities exist for scholarly peer reviewers.

OBJECTIVES: To create a comprehensive list of all openly available online trainings in scholarly peer review and to analyze their characteristics. STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING: A systematic review of online training material in scholarly peer review openly accessible between 2012 and 2022. Training characteristics were presented in evidence tables and summarized narratively. A risk of bias tool was purpose-built for this study to evaluate the included training material as evidence-based. RESULTS: Fourty-two training opportunities in manuscript peer review were identified, of which only twenty were openly accessible. Most were online modules (n = 12, 60%) with an estimated completion time of less than 1 hour (n = 13, 65%). Using our ad hoc risk of bias tool, four sources (20%) met our criteria of evidence-based. CONCLUSION: Our comprehensive search of the literature identified 20 openly accessible online training materials in manuscript peer review. For such a crucial step in the dissemination of literature, a lack of training could potentially explain disparities in the quality of scholarly publishing.

Interventions for intimate partner violence during the perinatal period: a scoping review protocol.

INTRODUCTION: Globally, the prevalence and incidence of perinatal intimate partner violence (IPV) are well documented and substantiated; however, there is an urgent need to identify interventions to prevent recurrence or revictimisation, and decrease the harms of perinatal IPV. This scoping review is designed to broadly capture all potential interventions for the secondary prevention of IPV, review them in detail, and assess what can reduce revictimisation and foster improvements in both maternal and neonatal outcomes. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: With the structure of the Joanna Briggs Institute and Arksey and O'Malley methodology for scoping reviews, the search will be conducted in: MEDLINE(R) ALL (OvidSP), Embase (OvidSP), CINAHL (EBSCOHost), APA PsycInfo (OvidSP), Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (OvidSP), Web of Science, and Applied Social Sciences Index & Abstracts (ProQuest). A manual search of the reference lists of the retrieved articles will be conducted to capture all relevant studies for potential inclusion. A year limit of January 2000-June 2022 will be applied to retrieve most current peer-reviewed articles. No search filters or language limits will be used, but only publications in English and French will be eligible for inclusion. Interventions include but are not limited to: psychotherapy, educational sessions, home visitation, etc. Outcomes include but are not limited to: (1) harms of IPV among survivors (eg, revictimisation) and (2) adverse perinatal outcomes (eg, preterm birth). Interventions will be excluded if they target the perpetrator or child(ren) alone. Titles and abstracts of included studies will be screened in duplicate. Full-text documents will be extracted and reviewed by two independent reviewers. Conflicts between reviewers will be resolved by a third independent reviewer. Findings will be presented with descriptive statistics and narrative synthesis. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: Ethics approval is not required for this scoping review. The results will be disseminated through peer-reviewed publication and conference presentations. STUDY REGISTRATION: Open Science Framework (OSF) registry (https://osf.io/e294r) in Centre for Open Science (OSF) on 27 May 2022.

Epidemiological characteristics and prevalence rates of research reproducibility across disciplines: A scoping review of articles published in 2018-2019.

Background: Reproducibility is a central tenant of research. We aimed to synthesize the literature on reproducibility and describe its epidemiological characteristics, including how reproducibility is defined and assessed. We also aimed to determine and compare estimates for reproducibility across different fields. Methods: We conducted a scoping review to identify English language replication studies published between 2018 and 2019 in economics, education, psychology, health sciences, and biomedicine. We searched Medline, Embase, PsycINFO, Cumulative Index of Nursing and Allied Health Literature - CINAHL, Education Source via EBSCOHost, ERIC, EconPapers, International Bibliography of the Social Sciences (IBSS), and EconLit. Documents retrieved were screened in duplicate against our inclusion criteria. We extracted year of publication, number of authors, country of affiliation of the corresponding author, and whether the study was funded. For the individual replication studies, we recorded whether a registered protocol for the replication study was used, whether there was contact between the reproducing team and the original authors, what study design was used, and what the primary outcome was. Finally, we recorded how reproducibilty was defined by the authors, and whether the assessed study(ies) successfully reproduced based on this definition. Extraction was done by a single reviewer and quality controlled by a second reviewer. Results: Our search identified 11,224 unique documents, of which 47 were included in this review. Most studies were related to either psychology (48.6%) or health sciences (23.7%). Among these 47 documents, 36 described a single reproducibility study while the remaining 11 reported at least two reproducibility studies in the same paper. Less than the half of the studies referred to a registered protocol. There was variability in the definitions of reproduciblity success. In total, across the 47 documents 177 studies were reported. Based on the definition used by the author of each study, 95 of 177 (53.7%) studies reproduced. Conclusions: This study gives an overview of research across five disciplines that explicitly set out to reproduce previous research. Such reproducibility studies are extremely scarce, the definition of a successfully reproduced study is ambiguous, and the reproducibility rate is overall modest. Funding: No external funding was received for this work.

Recommendations and guidelines for creating scholarly biomedical journals: A scoping review.

BACKGROUND: Scholarly journals play a key role in the dissemination of research findings. However, little focus is given to the process of establishing new, credible journals and the obstacles faced in achieving this. This scoping review aimed to identify and describe existing recommendations for starting a biomedical scholarly journal. METHODS: We searched five bibliographic databases: OVID Medline + Medline in Process, Embase Classic + Embase, ERIC, APA PsycINFO, and Web of Science on January 14, 2022. A related grey literature search was conducted on March 19, 2022. Eligible sources were those published in English in any year, of any format, and that described guidance for starting a biomedical journal. Titles and abstracts of obtained sources were screened. We extracted descriptive characteristics including author name, year and country of publication, journal name, and source type, and any recommendations from the included sources discussing guidance for starting a biomedical journal. These recommendations were categorized and thematically grouped. RESULTS: A total of 5626 unique sources were obtained. Thirty-three sources met our inclusion criteria. Most sources were blog posts (10/33; 30.30%), and only 10 sources were supported by evidence. We extracted 51 unique recommendations from these 33 sources, which we thematically classified into nine themes which were: journal operations, editorial review processes, peer review processes, open access publishing, copyediting/typesetting, production, archiving/indexing/metrics, marketing/promotion, and funding. CONCLUSIONS: There is little formal guidance regarding how to start a scholarly journal. The development of an evidence-based guideline may help uphold scholarly publishing quality, provide insight into obstacles new journals will face, and equip novice publishers with the tools to meet best practices.

Personalized care of patients with heart failure: are we ready for a REWOLUTION? Insights from two international surveys on healthcare professionals' needs and patients' perceptions.

AIMS: Guidelines for the management of heart failure (HF) are evolving, and increasing emphasis is placed on patient-centred care. As part of the REWOLUTION HF (REal WOrLd EdUcaTION in HF) programme, we conducted two international surveys aimed at assessing healthcare professionals' (HCPs) educational needs and patients' perspectives on the care of HF. METHODS AND RESULTS: Anonymous online questionnaires co-developed by HF experts and patients assessed HCPs' educational needs (520 respondents, mostly cardiologists, in 67 countries) and patients' perceptions on HF impact and management (98 respondents in 18 countries). Among HCPs, 62.7% prioritized rapid initiation of all guideline-mandated medications over up-titration of some medications, and 87.7% always or frequently discussed treatment goals with patients. There was good agreement between HCPs and patients on key treatment goals, except for a greater emphasis on reducing hospitalizations among HCPs. The most frequently cited barriers to the provision of guideline-recommended pharmacological therapy were treatment side effects/intolerance, complex treatment regimens, low blood pressure, cost/reimbursement issues, and low estimated glomerular filtration rate. Most patients (81.6%) reported no difficulties taking medications as prescribed, although 21.4% felt they were taking too many pills. Patients wanted more information about HF and its consequences, prognosis, and treatments (70.4%, 74.5% and 76.6%, respectively). Cardiologists were the preferred source of information about HF, followed by general practitioners and HF nurses. CONCLUSIONS: These surveys provide valuable insights into HCPs' needs about personalized care for patients with HF, as well as patients' perceptions, expectations and preferences. These findings will be helpful to develop patient-centred, needs-driven quality improvement programmes.

Community consensus on core open science practices to monitor in biomedicine.

The state of open science needs to be monitored to track changes over time and identify areas to create interventions to drive improvements. In order to monitor open science practices, they first need to be well defined and operationalized. To reach consensus on what open science practices to monitor at biomedical research institutions, we conducted a modified 3-round Delphi study. Participants were research administrators, researchers, specialists in dedicated open science roles, and librarians. In rounds 1 and 2, participants completed an online survey evaluating a set of potential open science practices, and for round 3, we hosted two half-day virtual meetings to discuss and vote on items that had not reached consensus. Ultimately, participants reached consensus on 19 open science practices. This core set of open science practices will form the foundation for institutional dashboards and may also be of value for the development of policy, education, and interventions.

Identifying barriers and enablers to rigorous conduct and reporting of preclinical laboratory studies.

Use of rigorous study design methods and transparent reporting in publications are 2 key strategies proposed to improve the reproducibility of preclinical research. Despite promotion of these practices by funders and journals, assessments suggest uptake is low in preclinical research. Thirty preclinical scientists were interviewed to better understand barriers and enablers to rigorous design and reporting. The interview guide was informed by the Theoretical Domains Framework, which is a framework used to understand determinants of current and desired behavior. Four global themes were identified; 2 reflecting enablers and 2 reflecting barriers. We found that basic scientists are highly motivated to apply the methods of rigorous design and reporting and perceive a number of benefits to their adoption (e.g., improved quality and reliability). However, there was varied awareness of the guidelines and in implementation of these practices. Researchers also noted that these guidelines can result in disadvantages, such as increased sample sizes, expenses, time, and can require several personnel to operationalize. Most researchers expressed additional resources such as personnel and education/training would better enable the application of some methods. Using existing guidance (Behaviour Change Wheel (BCW); Expert Recommendations for Implementing Change (ERIC) project implementation strategies), we mapped and coded our interview findings to identify potential interventions, policies, and implementation strategies to improve routine use of the guidelines by preclinical scientists. These findings will help inform specific strategies that may guide the development of programs and resources to improve experimental design and transparent reporting in preclinical research.

Spin in Randomized Controlled Trials in Obstetrics and Gynecology: A Systematic Review.

Objectives: The objective of this study was to evaluate the extent, type, and severity of spin in randomized controlled trials (RCTs) in obstetrics and gynecology. Data Sources: The top five highest impact journals in obstetrics and gynecology were systematically searched for RCTs with non-significant primary outcomes published between January 1, 2019, and December 31, 2020. Methods: Study selection and data extraction assessment were conducted independently and in duplicate. The extent, type, and severity of spin was identified and reported with previously established methodology, and risk of bias was assessed with the Cochrane Risk-of-Bias 2 Tool independently and in duplicate. Fisher's exact tests were used to evaluate the association between study characteristics, risk of bias, and spin. Results: We identified 1475 publications, of which 59 met our inclusion criteria. Articles evaluated interventions in obstetrics (n = 37, 63%) and gynecology (n = 22, 37%). Spin was not detected in 28 (47%) of the articles: Three (5%) had one, 10 (17%) had two, and 18 (31%) had greater than two occurrences of spin. Compared with articles where no spin was detected, spin was associated with the Cochrane Risk-of-Bias domain pertaining to missing data (p < 0.05). No association was observed with the journal, funding source, number of authors, types of interventions, and whether the study involved gynecology or obstetrics. Conclusions: Spin was detected in nearly half of 1:1 parallel two-arm RCTs in obstetrics and gynecology, highlighting the need for caution in the interpretation of RCT findings, particularly when the primary outcome is nonsignificant.

Canadian Resources on Cannabis Use and Fertility, Pregnancy, and Lactation: Scoping Review.

BACKGROUND: Cannabis use among reproductive-aged Canadians is increasing, but our understanding of its impacts on fertility, pregnancy, and breast milk is still evolving. Despite the availability of many web-based resources, informed decision-making and patient counseling are challenging for expectant families and providers alike. OBJECTIVE: We aimed to conduct a scoping review of publicly available web-based Canadian resources to provide information on the effects of cannabis on fertility, pregnancy, and breast milk. METHODS: Following PRISMA-ScR (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses extension for Scoping Reviews), we systematically searched 8 databases between January 1, 2010, and November 30, 2020, and web pages of 71 Canadian obstetrical, government, and public health organizations. We included English resources discussing the effects of cannabis on fertility, pregnancy, breastfeeding, or the exposed fetus and infant. Epidemiological characteristics, readability, and content information were extracted and summarized. RESULTS: A total of 183 resources met our inclusion criteria. Resources included content for public audiences (163/183, 89.1%) and health care providers (HCPs; 31/183, 16.9%). The resources were authored by national-level (46/183, 25.1%), provincial or territorial (65/183, 35.5%), and regional (72/183, 39.3%) organizations. All provinces and territories had at least one resource attributed to them. The majority (125/183, 68.3%) were written at a >10 grade reading level, and a few (7/183, 3.8%) were available in languages other than English or French. The breadth of content on fertility (55/183, 30.1%), pregnancy (173/183, 94.5%), and breast milk or breastfeeding (133/183, 72.7%) varied across resources. Common themes included citing a need for more research into the effects of cannabis on reproductive health and recommending that patients avoid or discontinue cannabis use. Although resources for providers were consistent in recommending patient counseling, resources targeting the public were less likely to encourage seeking advice from HCPs (23/163, 14.1%). CONCLUSIONS: Canadian resources consistently identify that there is no known safe amount of cannabis that can be consumed in the context of fertility, pregnancy, and breastfeeding. Areas of improvement include increasing readability and language accessibility and encouraging bidirectional communication between HCPs and patients. INTERNATIONAL REGISTERED REPORT IDENTIFIER (IRRID): RR2-10.1136/bmjopen-2020-045006.

Definition and Characteristics of Mesenchymal Stromal Cells in Preclinical and Clinical Studies: A Scoping Review.

Mesenchymal stromal cells (MSCs) are widely used in preclinical and clinical research. Despite minimal criteria to define MSCs provided by the International Society for Cell and Gene Therapy (ISCT), concerns have been raised about inconsistent descriptions of cell products used. To address the question "How are MSCs currently defined and characterized?" we conducted a scoping review on original MSC preclinical and clinical studies published over a 3-month period. Selected studies identified from a systematic search of MEDLINE and Embase were categorized as follows: Clinical, Animal, Biology, or Biomaterial studies. Data were extracted from a randomly selected subsample of studies. We extracted information, including epidemiological characteristics of studies, study design, ISCT criteria, and MSC characterization and culture condition. A total of 1053 articles were included and among them, 318 articles were analyzed. Overall, 18% of the articles explicitly referred to the ISCT minimal criteria for MSC. MSC characteristics and culture conditions were inconstantly reported (eg, viability assay reported in only 18% of the articles). Only 20% of documents reported at least 1 functional assay. Clinical studies showed inconsistent completeness in reporting relevant information on the MSC characterization and cell manufacturing processes. These results suggest that further development and implementation of a consensus definition of MSCs and reporting guidelines are needed to enhance rigor, reproducibility, and transparency in MSC research.