The epidemiology of drug-related hospital admissions in paediatrics - a systematic review.

BACKGROUND: Despite previous efforts, medication safety in paediatrics remains a major concern. To inform improvement strategies and further research especially in outpatient care, we systematically reviewed the literature on the frequency and nature of drug-related hospital admissions in children. METHODS: Searches covered Embase, Medline, Web of Science, grey literature sources and relevant article citations. Studies reporting epidemiological data on paediatric drug-related hospital admissions published between 01/2000 and 01/2024 were eligible. Study identification, data extraction, and critical appraisal were conducted independently in duplicate using templates based on the 'Joanna Briggs Institute' recommendations. RESULTS: The review included data from 45 studies reporting > 24,000 hospitalisations for adverse drug events (ADEs) or adverse drug reactions (ADRs). Due to different reference groups, a total of 52 relative frequency values were provided. We stratified these results by study characteristics. As a percentage of inpatients, the highest frequency of drug-related hospitalisation was found with 'intensive ADE monitoring', ranging from 3.1% to 5.8% (5 values), whereas with 'routine ADE monitoring', it ranged from 0.2% to 1.0% (3 values). The relative frequencies of 'ADR-related hospitalisations' ranged from 0.2% to 6.9% for 'intensive monitoring' (23 values) and from 0.04% to 3.8% for 'routine monitoring' (8 values). Per emergency department visits, five relative frequency values ranged from 0.1% to 3.8% in studies with 'intensive ADE monitoring', while all other eight values were ≤ 0.1%. Heterogeneity prevented pooled estimates. Studies rarely reported on the nature of the problems, or studies with broader objectives lacked disaggregated data. Limited data indicated that one in three (median) drug-related admissions could have been prevented, especially by more attentive prescribing. Besides polypharmacy and oncological therapy, no other risk factors could be clearly identified. Insufficient information and a high risk of bias, especially in retrospective and routine observational studies, hampered the assessment. CONCLUSION: Given the high frequency of drug-related hospitalisations, medication safety in paediatrics needs to be further improved. As routine identification appears unreliable, clinical awareness needs to be raised. To gain more profound insights especially for generating improvement strategies, we have to address under-reporting and methodological issues in future research. TRIAL REGISTRATION: PROSPERO (CRD42021296986).

Increased endorsement of TRIPOD and other reporting guidelines by high impact factor journals: survey of instructions to authors.

OBJECTIVES: To assess the endorsement of reporting guidelines by high impact factor journals over the period 2017-2022, with a specific focus on the Transparent Reporting of a multivariable prediction model for Individual Prognosis Or Diagnosis (TRIPOD) statement. STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING: We searched the online 'instructions to authors' of high impact factor medical journals in February 2017 and in January 2022 for any reference to reporting guidelines and TRIPOD in particular. RESULTS: In 2017, 205 out of 337 (61%) journals mentioned any reporting guideline in their instructions to authors and in 2022 this increased to 245 (73%) journals. A reference to TRIPOD was provided by 27 (8%) journals in 2017 and 67 (20%) in 2022. Of those journals mentioning TRIPOD in 2022, 22% provided a link to the TRIPOD website and 60% linked to TRIPOD information on the Enhancing the QUAlity and Transparency Of health Research (EQUATOR) Network website. Twenty-five percent of the journals required adherence to TRIPOD. CONCLUSION: About three-quarters of high-impact medical journals endorse the use of reporting guidelines and 20% endorse TRIPOD. Transparent reporting is important in enhancing the usefulness of health research and endorsement by journals plays a critical role in this.

Perspectives on systematic review protocol registration: a survey amongst stakeholders in the clinical research publication process.

BACKGROUND: As systematic reviews (SRs) inform healthcare decisions, it is key that they address relevant questions and use rigorous methodology. Registration of SR protocols helps researchers identify relevant topics for future reviews and aims to prevent bias and duplication of effort. However, most SRs protocols are currently not registered, despite its significance. To guide future recommendations to enhance preregistration of SRs, it is important to gain a comprehensive understanding of the perspectives within the research community. Therefore, this study aims to examine the experiences with and factors of influence (barriers and facilitators) on prospective SR registration amongst researchers, peer reviewers and journal editors. METHODS: Two different surveys were distributed to two groups: researchers and journal editors both identified from an existing sample of SRs. Researchers who indicated to have peer reviewed a SR were surveyed on their perspectives as peer reviewers as well. Survey design and analysis were informed by the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research (CFIR). Shared and unique subthemes from the perspectives of researchers, peer reviewers and journal editors were identified and linked to the SR registration process (Innovation), to team, organisation (Inner setting) and (inter)national research community (Outer setting), and to characteristics of researchers, peer reviewers or journal editors (Individuals). RESULTS: The survey's response rates were 65/727 (9%) for researchers, of which 37 were peer reviewers, and 22/308 (7%) for journal editors. Most respondents (n = 76, 94%) were familiar with SR protocol registration and 81% of researchers had registered minimally one SR protocol. Shared SR registration process subthemes were the importance and advantages of SR protocol registration, as well as barriers such as a high administrative burden. Shared subthemes regarding the inner and outer setting centred on journal processes, external standards and time. Shared individual factors were knowledge, skills and awareness. CONCLUSIONS: The majority of the respondents were familiar with SR protocol registration and had a positive attitude towards it. This study identified suboptimal registration process, administrative burden and lack of mandatory SR protocol registration as barriers. By overcoming these barriers, SR protocol registration could contribute more effectively to the goals of open science. SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION: osf.io/gmv6z.

What are Effective Strategies to Reduce Low-Value Care? An Analysis of 121 Randomized Deimplementation Studies.

BACKGROUND: Low-value care is healthcare leading to no or little clinical benefit for the patient. The best (combinations of) interventions to reduce low-value care are unclear. PURPOSE: To provide an overview of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) evaluating deimplementation strategies, to quantify the effectiveness and describe different combinations of strategies. METHODS: Analysis of 121 RCTs (1990-2019) evaluating a strategy to reduce low-value care, identified by a systematic review. Deimplementation strategies were described and associations between strategy characteristics and effectiveness explored. RESULTS: Of 109 trials comparing deimplementation to usual care, 75 (69%) reported a significant reduction of low-value healthcare practices. Seventy-three trials included in a quantitative analysis showed a median relative reduction of 17% (IQR 7%-42%). The effectiveness of deimplementation strategies was not associated with the number and types of interventions applied. CONCLUSIONS AND IMPLICATIONS: Most deimplementation strategies achieved a considerable reduction of low-value care. We found no signs that a particular type or number of interventions works best for deimplementation. Future deimplementation studies should map relevant contextual factors, such as the workplace culture or economic factors. Interventions should be tailored to these factors and provide details regarding sustainability of the effect.

Effectiveness of FeNO-guided treatment in adult asthma patients: A systematic review and meta-analysis.

OBJECTIVE: Asthma control is generally monitored by assessing symptoms and lung function. However, optimal treatment is also dependent on the type and extent of airway inflammation. Fraction of exhaled Nitric Oxide (FeNO) is a noninvasive biomarker of type 2 airway inflammation, but its effectiveness in guiding asthma treatment remains disputed. We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis to obtain summary estimates of the effectiveness of FeNO-guided asthma treatment. DESIGN: We updated a Cochrane systematic review from 2016. Cochrane Risk of Bias tool was used to assess risk of bias. Inverse-variance random-effects meta-analysis was performed. Certainty of evidence was assessed using GRADE. Subgroup analyses were performed based on asthma severity, asthma control, allergy/atopy, pregnancy and obesity. DATA SOURCES: The Cochrane Airways Group Trials Register was searched on 9 May 2023. ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA: We included randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing the effectiveness of a FeNO-guided treatment versus usual (symptom-guided) treatment in adult asthma patients. RESULTS: We included 12 RCTs (2,116 patients), all showing high or unclear risk of bias in at least one domain. Five RCTs reported support from a FeNO manufacturer. FeNO-guided treatment probably reduces the number of patients having ≥1 exacerbation (OR = 0.61; 95%CI 0.44 to 0.83; six RCTs; GRADE moderate certainty) and exacerbation rate (RR = 0.67; 95%CI 0.54 to 0.82; six RCTs; moderate certainty), and may slightly improve Asthma Control Questionnaire score (MD = -0.10; 95%CI -0.18 to -0.02, six RCTs; low certainty), however, this change is unlikely to be clinically important. An effect on severe exacerbations, quality of life, FEV1, treatment dosage and FeNO values could not be demonstrated. There were no indications that effectiveness is different in subgroups of patients, although evidence for subgroup analysis was limited. CONCLUSIONS: FeNO-guided asthma treatment probably results in fewer exacerbations but may not have clinically important effects on other asthma outcomes.

Diagnostic yield and safety of navigation bronchoscopy: A systematic review and meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: Navigation bronchoscopy has seen rapid development in the past decade in terms of new navigation techniques and multi-modality approaches utilizing different techniques and tools. This systematic review analyses the diagnostic yield and safety of navigation bronchoscopy for the diagnosis of peripheral pulmonary nodules suspected of lung cancer. METHODS: An extensive search was performed in Embase, Medline and Cochrane CENTRAL in May 2022. Eligible studies used cone-beam CT-guided navigation (CBCT), electromagnetic navigation (EMN), robotic navigation (RB) or virtual bronchoscopy (VB) as the primary navigation technique. Primary outcomes were diagnostic yield and adverse events. Quality of studies was assessed using QUADAS-2. Random effects meta-analysis was performed, with subgroup analyses for different navigation techniques, newer versus older techniques, nodule size, publication year, and strictness of diagnostic yield definition. Explorative analyses of subgroups reported by studies was performed for nodule size and bronchus sign. RESULTS: A total of 95 studies (n = 10,381 patients; n = 10,682 nodules) were included. The majority (n = 63; 66.3%) had high risk of bias or applicability concerns in at least one QUADAS-2 domain. Summary diagnostic yield was 70.9% (95%-CI 68.4%-73.2%). Overall pneumothorax rate was 2.5%. Newer navigation techniques using advanced imaging and/or robotics(CBCT, RB, tomosynthesis guided EMN; n = 24 studies) had a statistically significant higher diagnostic yield compared to longer established techniques (EMN, VB; n = 82 studies): 77.5% (95%-CI 74.7%-80.1%) vs 68.8% (95%-CI 65.9%-71.6%) (p < 0.001).Explorative subgroup analyses showed that larger nodule size and bronchus sign presence were associated with a statistically significant higher diagnostic yield. Other subgroup analyses showed no significant differences. CONCLUSION: Navigation bronchoscopy is a safe procedure, with the potential for high diagnostic yield, in particular using newer techniques such as RB, CBCT and tomosynthesis-guided EMN. Studies showed a large amount of heterogeneity, making comparisons difficult. Standardized definitions for outcomes with relevant clinical context will improve future comparability.

Indicators of questionable research practices were identified in 163,129 randomized controlled trials.

OBJECTIVES: To explore indicators of the following questionable research practices (QRPs) in randomized controlled trials (RCTs): (1) risk of bias in four domains (random sequence generation, allocation concealment, blinding of participants and personnel, and blinding of outcome assessment); (2) modifications in primary outcomes that were registered in trial registration records (proxy for selective reporting bias); (3) ratio of the achieved to planned sample sizes; and (4) statistical discrepancy. STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING: Full texts of all human RCTs published in PubMed in 1996-2017 were automatically identified and information was collected automatically. Potential indicators of QRPs included author-specific, publication-specific, and journal-specific characteristics. Beta, logistic, and linear regression models were used to identify associations between these potential indicators and QRPs. RESULTS: We included 163,129 RCT publications. The median probability of bias assessed using Robot Reviewer software ranged between 43% and 63% for the four risk of bias domains. A more recent publication year, trial registration, mentioning of CONsolidated Standards Of Reporting Trials-checklist, and a higher journal impact factor were consistently associated with a lower risk of QRPs. CONCLUSION: This comprehensive analysis provides an insight into indicators of QRPs. Researchers should be aware that certain characteristics of the author team and publication are associated with a higher risk of QRPs.

[Transparency in the body of evidence in medicine: developments of the GRADE method in the past ten years]. / Transparante wetenschappelijke onderbouwing van zorg.

GRADE ("Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation") provides a transparent framework to evaluate scientific evidence and to develop healthcare recommendations. The GRADE method has been further developed, its application has been significantly broadened and over 100 organizations have endorsed GRADE. In this article, we give an overview of the most important methodological developments and discuss the basic principles. The transparent approach to make it easier for users of evidence to assess the judgments behind recommendations is not only applicable to the EBM domains but also to other disciplines. The methods developments show that GRADE is still evolving, and is constantly being further developed based on the latest methodological insights and users perspective. GRADE is not an instrument to determine the "true" certainty of the evidence. The value of applying GRADE is that judgments about the quality of evidence and the considerations behind recommendations are structured, transparent and explicit.

The score after 10 years of registration of systematic review protocols.

BACKGROUND: With the exponential growth of published systematic reviews (SR), there is a high potential for overlapping and redundant duplication of work. Prospective protocol registration gives the opportunity to assess the added value of a new study or review, thereby potentially reducing research waste and simultaneously increasing transparency and research quality. The PROSPERO database for SR protocol registration was launched 10 years ago. This study aims to assess the proportion SRs of intervention studies with a protocol registration (or publication) and explore associations of SR characteristics with protocol registration status. METHODS: PubMed was searched for SRs of human intervention studies published in January 2020 and January 2021. After random-stratified sampling and eligibility screening, data extraction on publication and journal characteristics, and protocol registration status, was performed. Both descriptive and multivariable comparative statistical analyses were performed. RESULTS: A total of 357 SRs (2020: n = 163; 2021: n = 194) were included from a random sample of 1267 publications. Of the published SRs, 38% had a protocol. SRs that reported using PRISMA as a reporting guideline had higher odds of having a protocol than publications that did not report PRISMA (OR 2.71; 95% CI: 1.21 to 6.09). SRs with a higher journal impact factor had higher odds of having a protocol (OR 1.12; 95% CI 1.04 to 1.25). Publications from Asia had a lower odds of having a protocol (OR 0.43; 95% CI 0.23 to 0.80, reference category = Europe). Of the 33 SRs published in journals that endorse PROSPERO, 45% did not have a protocol. Most SR protocols were registered in PROSPERO (n = 129; 96%). CONCLUSIONS: We found that 38% of recently published SRs of interventions reported a registered or published protocol. Protocol registration was significantly associated with a higher impact factor of the journal publishing the SR and a more frequent self-reported use of the PRISMA guidelines. In some parts of the world, SR protocols are more often registered or published than others. To guide strategies to increase the uptake of SR protocol registration, further research is needed to gain understanding of the benefits and informativeness of SRs protocols among different stakeholders. SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION: osf.io/9kj7r/.

What did we learn in 35 years of research on nutrition and supplements for age-related macular degeneration: a systematic review.

The aim of this paper is to summarize all available evidence from systematic reviews, randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and comparative nonrandomized studies (NRS) on the association between nutrition and antioxidant, vitamin, and mineral supplements and the development or progression of age-related macular degeneration (AMD). The Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, Cochrane register CENTRAL, MEDLINE and Embase were searched and studies published between January 2015 and May 2021 were included. The certainty of evidence was assessed according to the GRADE methodology. The main outcome measures were development of AMD, progression of AMD, and side effects. We included 7 systematic reviews, 7 RCTs, and 13 NRS. A high consumption of specific nutrients, i.e. ß-carotene, lutein and zeaxanthin, copper, folate, magnesium, vitamin A, niacin, vitamin B6, vitamin C, docosahexaenoic acid, and eicosapentaenoic acid, was associated with a lower risk of progression of early to late AMD (high certainty of evidence). Use of antioxidant supplements and adherence to a Mediterranean diet, characterized by a high consumption of vegetables, whole grains, and nuts and a low consumption of red meat, were associated with a decreased risk of progression of early to late AMD (moderate certainty of evidence). A high consumption of alcohol was associated with a higher risk of developing AMD (moderate certainty of evidence). Supplementary vitamin C, vitamin E, or ß-carotene were not associated with the development of AMD, and supplementary omega-3 fatty acids were not associated with progression to late AMD (high certainty of evidence). Research in the last 35 years included in our overview supports that a high intake of specific nutrients, the use of antioxidant supplements and adherence to a Mediterranean diet decrease the risk of progression of early to late AMD.

The methodological quality of 176,620 randomized controlled trials published between 1966 and 2018 reveals a positive trend but also an urgent need for improvement.

Many randomized controlled trials (RCTs) are biased and difficult to reproduce due to methodological flaws and poor reporting. There is increasing attention for responsible research practices and implementation of reporting guidelines, but whether these efforts have improved the methodological quality of RCTs (e.g., lower risk of bias) is unknown. We, therefore, mapped risk-of-bias trends over time in RCT publications in relation to journal and author characteristics. Meta-information of 176,620 RCTs published between 1966 and 2018 was extracted. The risk-of-bias probability (random sequence generation, allocation concealment, blinding of patients/personnel, and blinding of outcome assessment) was assessed using a risk-of-bias machine learning tool. This tool was simultaneously validated using 63,327 human risk-of-bias assessments obtained from 17,394 RCTs evaluated in the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews (CDSR). Moreover, RCT registration and CONSORT Statement reporting were assessed using automated searches. Publication characteristics included the number of authors, journal impact factor (JIF), and medical discipline. The annual number of published RCTs substantially increased over 4 decades, accompanied by increases in authors (5.2 to 7.8) and institutions (2.9 to 4.8). The risk of bias remained present in most RCTs but decreased over time for allocation concealment (63% to 51%), random sequence generation (57% to 36%), and blinding of outcome assessment (58% to 52%). Trial registration (37% to 47%) and the use of the CONSORT Statement (1% to 20%) also rapidly increased. In journals with a higher impact factor (>10), the risk of bias was consistently lower with higher levels of RCT registration and the use of the CONSORT Statement. Automated risk-of-bias predictions had accuracies above 70% for allocation concealment (70.7%), random sequence generation (72.1%), and blinding of patients/personnel (79.8%), but not for blinding of outcome assessment (62.7%). In conclusion, the likelihood of bias in RCTs has generally decreased over the last decades. This optimistic trend may be driven by increased knowledge augmented by mandatory trial registration and more stringent reporting guidelines and journal requirements. Nevertheless, relatively high probabilities of bias remain, particularly in journals with lower impact factors. This emphasizes that further improvement of RCT registration, conduct, and reporting is still urgently needed.

Reducing Inappropriate Proton Pump Inhibitors Use for Stress Ulcer Prophylaxis in Hospitalized Patients: Systematic Review of De-Implementation Studies.

BACKGROUND: A large proportion of proton pump inhibitor (PPI) prescriptions, including those for stress ulcer prophylaxis (SUP), are inappropriate. Our study purpose was to systematically review the effectiveness of de-implementation strategies aimed at reducing inappropriate PPI use for SUP in hospitalized, non-intensive care unit (non-ICU) patients. METHODS: We searched MEDLINE and Embase databases (from inception to January 2020). Two authors independently screened references, performed data extraction, and critical appraisal. Randomized trials and comparative observational studies were eligible for inclusion. Criteria developed by the Cochrane Effective Practice and Organisation of Care (EPOC) group were used for critical appraisal. Besides the primary outcome (inappropriate PPI prescription or use), secondary outcomes included (adverse) pharmaceutical effects and healthcare use. RESULTS: We included ten studies in this review. Most de-implementation strategies contained an educational component (meetings and/or materials), combined with either clinical guideline implementation (n = 5), audit feedback (n = 3), organizational culture (n = 4), or reminders (n = 1). One study evaluating the de-implementation strategy effectiveness showed a significant reduction (RR 0.14; 95% CI 0.03-0.55) of new inappropriate PPI prescriptions. Out of five studies evaluating the effectiveness of de-implementing inappropriate PPI use, four found a significant reduction (RR 0.21; 95% CI 0.18-0.26 to RR 0.76; 95% CI 0.68-0.86). No significant differences in the occurrence of pharmaceutical effects (n = 1) and in length of stay (n = 3) were observed. Adverse pharmaceutical effects were reported in two studies and five studies reported on PPI or total drug costs. No pooled effect estimates were calculated because of large statistical heterogeneity between studies. DISCUSSION: All identified studies reported mainly educational interventions in combination with one or multiple other intervention strategies and all interventions were targeted at providers. Most studies found a small to moderate reduction of (inappropriate) PPI prescriptions or use.

Strategies to reduce the use of low-value medical tests in primary care: a systematic review.

BACKGROUND: It is recognised that medical tests are overused in primary care; however, it is unclear how best to reduce their use. AIM: To identify which strategies are effective in reducing the use of low-value medical tests in primary care settings. DESIGN AND SETTING: Systematic review. METHOD: The databases MEDLINE, EMBASE, and Rx for Change were searched (January 1990 to November 2019) for randomised controlled trials (RCTs) that evaluated strategies to reduce the use of low-value medical tests in primary care settings. Two reviewers selected eligible RCTs, extracted data, and assessed their risk of bias. RESULTS: Of the 16 RCTs included in the review, 11 reported a statistically significant reduction in the use of low-value medical tests. The median of the differences between the relative reductions in the intervention and control arms was 17% (interquartile range 12% to 24%). Strategies using reminders or audit/feedback showed larger reduction than those without these components (22% versus 14%, and 22% versus 13%, respectively) and patient-targeted strategies showed larger reductions than those not targeted at patients (51% versus 17%). Very few studies investigated the sustainability of the effect, adverse events, cost-effectiveness, or patient-reported outcomes related to reducing the use of low-value tests. CONCLUSION: This review indicates that it is possible to reduce the use of low-value medical tests in primary care, especially by using multiple components including reminders, audit/feedback, and patient-targeted interventions. To implement these strategies widely in primary care settings, more research is needed not only to investigate their effectiveness, but also to examine adverse events, cost-effectiveness, and patient-reported outcomes.

Barriers and facilitators to reduce low-value care: a qualitative evidence synthesis.

OBJECTIVE: To assess barriers and facilitators to de-implementation. DESIGN: A qualitative evidence synthesis with a framework analysis. DATA SOURCES: Medline, Embase, Cochrane Library and Rx for Change databases until September 2018 were searched. ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA: We included studies that primarily focused on identifying factors influencing de-implementation or the continuation of low-value care, and studies describing influencing factors related to the effect of a de-implementation strategy. DATA EXTRACTION AND SYNTHESIS: The factors were classified on five levels: individual provider, individual patient, social context, organisational context, economic/political context. RESULTS: We identified 333 factors in 81 articles. Factors related to the individual provider (n=131; 74% barriers, 17% facilitators, 9% both barrier/facilitator) were associated with their attitude (n=72; 55%), knowledge/skills (n=43; 33%), behaviour (n=11; 8%) and provider characteristics (n=5; 4%). Individual patient factors (n=58; 72% barriers, 9% facilitators, 19% both barrier/facilitator) were mainly related to knowledge (n=33; 56%) and attitude (n=13; 22%). Factors related to the social context (n=46; 41% barriers, 48% facilitators, 11% both barrier/facilitator) included mainly professional teams (n=23; 50%) and professional development (n=12; 26%). Frequent factors in the organisational context (n=67; 67% barriers, 25% facilitators, 8% both barrier/facilitator) were available resources (n=28; 41%) and organisational structures and work routines (n=24; 36%). Under the category of economic and political context (n=31; 71% barriers, 13% facilitators, 16% both barrier/facilitator), financial incentives were most common (n=27; 87%). CONCLUSIONS: This study provides in-depth insight into the factors within the different (sub)categories that are important in reducing low-value care. This can be used to identify barriers and facilitators in low-value care practices or to stimulate development of strategies that need further refinement. We conclude that multifaceted de-implementation strategies are often necessary for effective reduction of low-value care. Situation-specific knowledge of impeding or facilitating factors across all levels is important for designing tailored de-implementation strategies.

TRIPOD statement: a preliminary pre-post analysis of reporting and methods of prediction models.

OBJECTIVES: To assess the difference in completeness of reporting and methodological conduct of published prediction models before and after publication of the Transparent Reporting of a multivariable prediction model for Individual Prognosis Or Diagnosis (TRIPOD) statement. METHODS: In the seven general medicine journals with the highest impact factor, we compared the completeness of the reporting and the quality of the methodology of prediction model studies published between 2012 and 2014 (pre-TRIPOD) with studies published between 2016 and 2017 (post-TRIPOD). For articles published in the post-TRIPOD period, we examined whether there was improved reporting for articles (1) citing the TRIPOD statement, and (2) published in journals that published the TRIPOD statement. RESULTS: A total of 70 articles was included (pre-TRIPOD: 32, post-TRIPOD: 38). No improvement was seen for the overall percentage of reported items after the publication of the TRIPOD statement (pre-TRIPOD 74%, post-TRIPOD 76%, 95% CI of absolute difference: -4% to 7%). For the individual TRIPOD items, an improvement was seen for 16 (44%) items, while 3 (8%) items showed no improvement and 17 (47%) items showed a deterioration. Post-TRIPOD, there was no improved reporting for articles citing the TRIPOD statement, nor for articles published in journals that published the TRIPOD statement. The methodological quality improved in the post-TRIPOD period. More models were externally validated in the same article (absolute difference 8%, post-TRIPOD: 39%), used measures of calibration (21%, post-TRIPOD: 87%) and discrimination (9%, post-TRIPOD: 100%), and used multiple imputation for handling missing data (12%, post-TRIPOD: 50%). CONCLUSIONS: Since the publication of the TRIPOD statement, some reporting and methodological aspects have improved. Prediction models are still often poorly developed and validated and many aspects remain poorly reported, hindering optimal clinical application of these models. Long-term effects of the TRIPOD statement publication should be evaluated in future studies.

Transparent Reporting of Multivariable Prediction Models in Journal and Conference Abstracts: TRIPOD for Abstracts.

Clear and informative reporting in titles and abstracts is essential to help readers and reviewers identify potentially relevant studies and decide whether to read the full text. Although the TRIPOD (Transparent Reporting of a multivariable prediction model for Individual Prognosis Or Diagnosis) statement provides general recommendations for reporting titles and abstracts, more detailed guidance seems to be desirable. The authors present TRIPOD for Abstracts, a checklist and corresponding guidance for reporting prediction model studies in abstracts. A list of 32 potentially relevant items was the starting point for a modified Delphi procedure involving 110 experts, of whom 71 (65%) participated in the web-based survey. After 2 Delphi rounds, the experts agreed on 21 items as being essential to report in abstracts of prediction model studies. This number was reduced by merging some of the items. In a third round, participants provided feedback on a draft version of TRIPOD for Abstracts. The final checklist contains 12 items and applies to journal and conference abstracts that describe the development or external validation of a diagnostic or prognostic prediction model, or the added value of predictors to an existing model, regardless of the clinical domain or statistical approach used.

Prediction models for diagnosis and prognosis of covid-19: systematic review and critical appraisal

OBJECTIVE: To review and appraise the validity and usefulness of published and preprint reports of prediction models for diagnosing coronavirus disease 2019 (covid-19) in patients with suspected infection, for prognosis of patients with covid-19, and for detecting people in the general population at increased risk of covid-19 infection or being admitted to hospital with the disease. DESIGN: Living systematic review and critical appraisal by the COVID-PRECISE (Precise Risk Estimation to optimise covid-19 Care for Infected or Suspected patients in diverse sEttings) group. DATA SOURCES: PubMed and Embase through Ovid, up to 1 July 2020, supplemented with arXiv, medRxiv, and bioRxiv up to 5 May 2020. STUDY SELECTION: Studies that developed or validated a multivariable covid-19 related prediction model. DATA EXTRACTION: At least two authors independently extracted data using the CHARMS (critical appraisal and data extraction for systematic reviews of prediction modelling studies) checklist; risk of bias was assessed using PROBAST (prediction model risk of bias assessment tool). RESULTS: 37 421 titles were screened, and 169 studies describing 232 prediction models were included. The review identified seven models for identifying people at risk in the general population; 118 diagnostic models for detecting covid-19 (75 were based on medical imaging, 10 to diagnose disease severity); and 107 prognostic models for predicting mortality risk, progression to severe disease, intensive care unit admission, ventilation, intubation, or length of hospital stay. The most frequent types of predictors included in the covid-19 prediction models are vital signs, age, comorbidities, and image features. Flu-like symptoms are frequently predictive in diagnostic models, while sex, C reactive protein, and lymphocyte counts are frequent prognostic factors. Reported C index estimates from the strongest form of validation available per model ranged from 0.71 to 0.99 in prediction models for the general population, from 0.65 to more than 0.99 in diagnostic models, and from 0.54 to 0.99 in prognostic models. All models were rated at high or unclear risk of bias, mostly because of non-representative selection of control patients, exclusion of patients who had not experienced the event of interest by the end of the study, high risk of model overfitting, and unclear reporting. Many models did not include a description of the target population (n=27, 12%) or care setting (n=75, 32%), and only 11 (5%) were externally validated by a calibration plot. The Jehi diagnostic model and the 4C mortality score were identified as promising models. CONCLUSION: Prediction models for covid-19 are quickly entering the academic literature to support medical decision making at a time when they are urgently needed. This review indicates that almost all pubished prediction models are poorly reported, and at high risk of bias such that their reported predictive performance is probably optimistic. However, we have identified two (one diagnostic and one prognostic) promising models that should soon be validated in multiple cohorts, preferably through collaborative efforts and data sharing to also allow an investigation of the stability and heterogeneity in their performance across populations and settings. Details on all reviewed models are publicly available at https://www.covprecise.org/. Methodological guidance as provided in this paper should be followed because unreliable predictions could cause more harm than benefit in guiding clinical decisions. Finally, prediction model authors should adhere to the TRIPOD (transparent reporting of a multivariable prediction model for individual prognosis or diagnosis) reporting guideline. SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION: Protocol https://osf.io/ehc47/, registration https://osf.io/wy245. READERS' NOTE: This article is a living systematic review that will be updated to reflect emerging evidence. Updates may occur for up to two years from the date of original publication. This version is update 3 of the original article published on 7 April 2020 (BMJ 2020;369:m1328). Previous updates can be found as data supplements (https://www.bmj.com/content/369/bmj.m1328/related#datasupp). When citing this paper please consider adding the update number and date of access for clarity.

Performance of the Framingham risk models and pooled cohort equations for predicting 10-year risk of cardiovascular disease: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: The Framingham risk models and pooled cohort equations (PCE) are widely used and advocated in guidelines for predicting 10-year risk of developing coronary heart disease (CHD) and cardiovascular disease (CVD) in the general population. Over the past few decades, these models have been extensively validated within different populations, which provided mounting evidence that local tailoring is often necessary to obtain accurate predictions. The objective is to systematically review and summarize the predictive performance of three widely advocated cardiovascular risk prediction models (Framingham Wilson 1998, Framingham ATP III 2002 and PCE 2013) in men and women separately, to assess the generalizability of performance across different subgroups and geographical regions, and to determine sources of heterogeneity in the findings across studies. METHODS: A search was performed in October 2017 to identify studies investigating the predictive performance of the aforementioned models. Studies were included if they externally validated one or more of the original models in the general population for the same outcome as the original model. We assessed risk of bias for each validation and extracted data on population characteristics and model performance. Performance estimates (observed versus expected (OE) ratio and c-statistic) were summarized using a random effects models and sources of heterogeneity were explored with meta-regression. RESULTS: The search identified 1585 studies, of which 38 were included, describing a total of 112 external validations. Results indicate that, on average, all models overestimate the 10-year risk of CHD and CVD (pooled OE ratio ranged from 0.58 (95% CI 0.43-0.73; Wilson men) to 0.79 (95% CI 0.60-0.97; ATP III women)). Overestimation was most pronounced for high-risk individuals and European populations. Further, discriminative performance was better in women for all models. There was considerable heterogeneity in the c-statistic between studies, likely due to differences in population characteristics. CONCLUSIONS: The Framingham Wilson, ATP III and PCE discriminate comparably well but all overestimate the risk of developing CVD, especially in higher risk populations. Because the extent of miscalibration substantially varied across settings, we highly recommend that researchers further explore reasons for overprediction and that the models be updated for specific populations.

Uniformity in measuring adherence to reporting guidelines: the example of TRIPOD for assessing completeness of reporting of prediction model studies.

To promote uniformity in measuring adherence to the Transparent Reporting of a multivariable prediction model for Individual Prognosis Or Diagnosis (TRIPOD) statement, a reporting guideline for diagnostic and prognostic prediction model studies, and thereby facilitate comparability of future studies assessing its impact, we transformed the original 22 TRIPOD items into an adherence assessment form and defined adherence scoring rules. TRIPOD specific challenges encountered were the existence of different types of prediction model studies and possible combinations of these within publications. More general issues included dealing with multiple reporting elements, reference to information in another publication, and non-applicability of items. We recommend our adherence assessment form to be used by anyone (eg, researchers, reviewers, editors) evaluating adherence to TRIPOD, to make these assessments comparable. In general, when developing a form to assess adherence to a reporting guideline, we recommend formulating specific adherence elements (if needed multiple per reporting guideline item) using unambiguous wording and the consideration of issues of applicability in advance.

Probiotics for the prevention or treatment of chemotherapy- or radiotherapy-related diarrhoea in people with cancer.

BACKGROUND: Treament-related diarrhoea is one of the most common and troublesome adverse effects related to chemotherapy or radiotherapy in people with cancer. Its reported incidence has been as high as 50% to 80%. Severe treatment-related diarrhoea can lead to fluid and electrolyte losses and nutritional deficiencies and could adversely affect quality of life (QoL). It is also associated with increased risk of infection in people with neutropenia due to anticancer therapy and often leads to treatment delays, dose reductions, or treatment discontinuation. Probiotics may be effective in preventing or treating chemotherapy- or radiotherapy-induced diarrhoea. OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the clinical effectiveness and side effects of probiotics used alone or combined with other agents for prevention or treatment of chemotherapy- or radiotherapy-related diarrhoea in people with cancer. SEARCH METHODS: We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL; 2017, Issue 7), MEDLINE (1946 to July week 2, 2017), and Embase (1980 to 2017, week 30). We also searched prospective clinical trial registers and the reference lists of included studies. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) investigating the effects of probiotics for prevention or treatment of chemotherapy- or radiotherapy-related diarrhoea in people with cancer. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors independently selected studies, extracted data, and assessed risk of bias. We used random-effects models for all meta-analyses. If meta-analysis was not possible, we summarised the results narratively. MAIN RESULTS: We included 12 studies involving 1554 participants. Eleven studies were prevention studies, of which seven compared probiotics with placebo (887 participants), one compared two doses of probiotics with each other and with placebo (246 participants), and three compared probiotics with another active agent (216 participants).The remaining study assessed the effectiveness of probiotics compared with placebo for treatment of radiotherapy-related diarrhoea (205 participants).For prevention of radiotherapy (with or without chemotherapy)-induced diarrhoea, review authors identified five heterogeneous placebo-controlled studies (with 926 participants analysed). Owing to heterogeneity, we could not carry out a meta-analysis, except for two outcomes. For occurrence of any diarrhoea, risk ratios (RRs) ranged from 0.35 (95% confidence interval (CI) 0.26 to 0.47) to 1.0 (95% CI 0.94 to 1.06) (three studies; low-certainty evidence). A beneficial effect of probiotics on quality of life could neither be demonstrated nor refuted (two studies; low-certainty evidence). For occurrence of grade 2 or higher diarrhoea, the pooled RR was 0.75 (95% CI 0.55 to 1.03; four studies; 420 participants; low-certainty evidence), and for grade 3 or higher diarrhoea, RRs ranged from 0.11 (95% CI 0.06 to 0.23) to 1.24 (95% CI 0.74 to 2.08) (three studies; low-certainty evidence). For probiotic users, time to rescue medication was 36 hours longer in one study (95% CI 34.7 to 37.3), but another study reported no difference (moderate-certainty evidence). For the need for rescue medication, the pooled RR was 0.50 (95% CI 0.15 to 1.66; three studies; 194 participants; very low-certainty evidence). No study reported major differences between groups with respect to adverse effects. Although not mentioned explicitly, no studies reported deaths, except one in which one participant in the probiotics group died of myocardial infarction after three sessions of radiotherapy.Three placebo-controlled studies, with 128 analysed participants, addressed prevention of chemotherapy-induced diarrhoea. For occurrence of any diarrhoea, the pooled RR was 0.59 (95% CI 0.36 to 0.96; two studies; 106 participants; low-certainty evidence). For all other outcomes, a beneficial effect of probiotics could be neither demonstrated nor refuted (one to two studies; 46 to 106 participants; all low-certainty evidence). Studies did not address quality of life nor time to rescue medication.Three studies compared probiotics with another intervention in 213 participants treated with radiotherapy (with or without chemotherapy). One very small study (21 participants) reported less diarrhoea six weeks after treatment when dietary counselling was provided (RR 0.30, 95% CI 0.11 to 0.81; very low-certainty evidence). In another study (148 participants), grade 3 or 4 diarrhoea occurred less often in the probiotics group than in the control group (guar gum containing nutritional supplement) (odds ratio (OR) 0.38, 95% CI 0.16 to 0.89; low-certainty evidence), and two studies (63 participants) found less need for rescue medication of probiotics versus another active treatment (RR 0.44, 95% CI 0.22 to 0.86; very low-certainty evidence). Studies did not address quality of life nor time to rescue medication.One placebo-controlled study with 205 participants addressed treatment for radiotherapy-induced diarrhoea and could not demonstrate or refute a beneficial effect of probiotics on average diarrhoea grade, time to rescue medication for diarrhoea (13 hours longer in the probiotics group; 95% CI -0.9 to 26.9 hours), or need for rescue medication (RR 0.74, 95% CI 0.53 to 1.03; moderate-certainty evidence). This study did not address quality of life.No studies reported serious adverse events or diarrhoea-related deaths. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: This review presents limited low- or very low-certainty evidence supporting the effects of probiotics for prevention and treatment of diarrhoea related to radiotherapy (with or without chemotherapy) or chemotherapy alone, need for rescue medication, or occurrence of adverse events. All studies were underpowered and heterogeneous. Severe side effects were absent from all studies.Robust evidence on this topic must be provided by future methodologically well-designed trials.