Factors associated with physical function among people with systemic sclerosis: a SPIN cohort cross-sectional study.

OBJECTIVES: To compare physical function in systemic sclerosis (SSc, scleroderma) to general population normative data and identify associated factors. METHODS: Scleroderma Patient-centered Intervention Network Cohort participants completed the Physical Function domain of the Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System Version 2 upon enrolment. Multivariable linear regression was used to assess associations of sociodemographic, lifestyle, and disease-related variables. RESULTS: Among 2,385 participants, mean physical function T-score (43.7, SD = 8.9) was ∼2/3 of a standard deviation (SD) below the US general population (mean = 50, SD = 10). Factors associated in multivariable analysis included older age (-0.74 points per SD years, 95% CI -0.78 to -1.08), female sex (-1.35, -2.37 to -0.34), fewer years of education (-0.41 points per SD in years, -0.75 to -0.07), being single, divorced, or widowed (-0.76, -1.48 to -0.03), smoking (-3.14, -4.42 to -1.85), alcohol consumption (0.79 points per SD drinks per week, 0.45-1.14), BMI (-1.41 points per SD, -1.75 to -1.07), diffuse subtype (-1.43, -2.23 to -0.62), gastrointestinal involvement (-2.58, -3.53 to -1.62), digital ulcers (-1.96, -2.94 to -0.98), moderate (-1.94, -2.94 to -0.93) and severe (-1.76, -3.24 to -0.28) small joint contractures, moderate (-2.10, -3.44 to -0.76) and severe (-2.54, -4.64 to -0.44) large joint contractures, interstitial lung disease (-1.52, -2.27 to -0.77), pulmonary arterial hypertension (-3.72, -4.91 to -2.52), rheumatoid arthritis (-2.10, -3.64 to -0.56) and idiopathic inflammatory myositis (-2.10, -3.63 to -0.56). CONCLUSION: Physical function is impaired for many individuals with SSc and associated with multiple disease factors.

Factors associated with satisfaction with social roles and activities among people with systemic sclerosis: a Scleroderma Patient-centered Intervention Network (SPIN) cohort cross-sectional study.

OBJECTIVE: The objectives were to (1) compare satisfaction with social roles and activities in a large multinational systemic sclerosis (SSc) cohort to general population normative data and (2) identify sociodemographic, lifestyle and SSc disease factors associated with satisfaction with social roles and activities. METHODS: Participants in the Scleroderma Patient-centered Intervention Network Cohort completed the Patient Reported Outcomes Information System Version 2 satisfaction with social roles and activities domain questionnaire. Multivariable regression was used to assess associations with sociodemographic, lifestyle and disease factors. RESULTS: Among 2385 participants, mean satisfaction with social roles and activities T-score (48.1, SD=9.9) was slightly lower than the US general population (mean=50, SD=10). Factors independently associated with satisfaction were years of education (0.54 per SD, 95% CI 0.14 to 0.93); non-White race or ethnicity (-1.13, 95% CI -2.18 to -0.08); living in Canada (-1.33, 95% CI -2.40 to -0.26 (reference USA)) or the UK (-2.49, 95% CI -3.92 to -1.06); body mass index (-1.08 per SD, 95% CI -1.47 to -0.69); gastrointestinal involvement (-3.16, 95% CI -4.27 to -2.05); digital ulcers (-1.90, 95% CI -3.05 to -0.76); moderate (-1.62, 95% CI -2.78 to -0.45) or severe (-2.26, 95% CI -3.99 to -0.52) small joint contractures; interstitial lung disease (-1.11, 95% CI -1.97 to -0.25); pulmonary arterial hypertension (-2.69, 95% CI -4.08 to -1.30); rheumatoid arthritis (-2.51, 95% CI -4.28 to -0.73); and Sjogren's syndrome (-2.42, 95% CI -3.96 to -0.88). CONCLUSION: Mean satisfaction with social roles and activities is slightly lower in SSc than the general population and associated with multiple sociodemographic and disease factors.

Methods and results of studies on reporting guideline adherence are poorly reported: a meta-research study.

OBJECTIVES: We investigated recent meta-research studies on adherence to four reporting guidelines to determine the proportion that provided (1) an explanation for how adherence to guideline items was rated and (2) results from all included individual studies. We examined conclusions of each meta-research study to evaluate possible repetitive and similar findings. STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING: A cross-sectional meta-research study. MEDLINE (Ovid) was searched on July 5, 2022 for studies that used any version of the Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials, Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses, Standards for the Reporting of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies, or Strengthening the Reporting of Observational Studies in Epidemiology reporting guidelines or their extensions to evaluate reporting. RESULTS: Of 148 included meta-research studies published between August 2020 and June 2022, 14 (10%, 95% confidence interval [CI] 6%-15%) provided a fully replicable explanation of how they coded the adherence ratings and 49 (33%, 95% CI 26%-41%) completely reported individual study results. Of 90 studies that classified reporting as adequate or inadequate in the study abstract, six (7%, 95% CI 3%-14%) concluded that reporting was adequate, but none of those six studies provided information on how items were coded or provided item-level results for included studies. CONCLUSION: Almost all included meta-research studies found that reporting in health research is suboptimal. However, few of these reported enough information for verification or replication.

Comparison of mental health symptoms before and during the covid-19 pandemic: evidence from a systematic review and meta-analysis of 134 cohorts.

OBJECTIVE: To synthesise results of mental health outcomes in cohorts before and during the covid-19 pandemic. DESIGN: Systematic review. DATA SOURCES: Medline, PsycINFO, CINAHL, Embase, Web of Science, China National Knowledge Infrastructure, Wanfang, medRxiv, and Open Science Framework Preprints. ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA FOR SELECTING STUDIES: Studies comparing general mental health, anxiety symptoms, or depression symptoms assessed from 1 January 2020 or later with outcomes collected from 1 January 2018 to 31 December 2019 in any population, and comprising ≥90% of the same participants before and during the covid-19 pandemic or using statistical methods to account for missing data. Restricted maximum likelihood random effects meta-analyses (worse covid-19 outcomes representing positive change) were performed. Risk of bias was assessed using an adapted Joanna Briggs Institute Checklist for Prevalence Studies. RESULTS: As of 11 April 2022, 94 411 unique titles and abstracts including 137 unique studies from 134 cohorts were reviewed. Most of the studies were from high income (n=105, 77%) or upper middle income (n=28, 20%) countries. Among general population studies, no changes were found for general mental health (standardised mean difference (SMD)change 0.11, 95% confidence interval -0.00 to 0.22) or anxiety symptoms (0.05, -0.04 to 0.13), but depression symptoms worsened minimally (0.12, 0.01 to 0.24). Among women or female participants, general mental health (0.22, 0.08 to 0.35), anxiety symptoms (0.20, 0.12 to 0.29), and depression symptoms (0.22, 0.05 to 0.40) worsened by minimal to small amounts. In 27 other analyses across outcome domains among subgroups other than women or female participants, five analyses suggested that symptoms worsened by minimal or small amounts, and two suggested minimal or small improvements. No other subgroup experienced changes across all outcome domains. In three studies with data from March to April 2020 and late 2020, symptoms were unchanged from pre-covid-19 levels at both assessments or increased initially then returned to pre-covid-19 levels. Substantial heterogeneity and risk of bias were present across analyses. CONCLUSIONS: High risk of bias in many studies and substantial heterogeneity suggest caution in interpreting results. Nonetheless, most symptom change estimates for general mental health, anxiety symptoms, and depression symptoms were close to zero and not statistically significant, and significant changes were of minimal to small magnitudes. Small negative changes occurred for women or female participants in all domains. The authors will update the results of this systematic review as more evidence accrues, with study results posted online (https://www.depressd.ca/covid-19-mental-health). REVIEW REGISTRATION: PROSPERO CRD42020179703.

Systematic review of mental health symptom changes by sex or gender in early-COVID-19 compared to pre-pandemic.

Women and gender-diverse individuals have faced disproportionate socioeconomic burden during COVID-19. There have been reports of greater negative mental health changes compared to men based on cross-sectional research that has not accounted for pre-COVID-19 differences. We compared mental health changes from pre-COVID-19 to during COVID-19 by sex or gender. MEDLINE (Ovid), PsycINFO (Ovid), CINAHL (EBSCO), EMBASE (Ovid), Web of Science Core Collection: Citation Indexes, China National Knowledge Infrastructure, Wanfang, medRxiv (preprints), and Open Science Framework Preprints (preprint server aggregator) were searched to August 30, 2021. Eligible studies included mental health symptom change data by sex or gender. 12 studies (10 unique cohorts) were included, all of which reported dichotomized sex or gender data. 9 cohorts reported results from March to June 2020, and 2 of these also reported on September or November to December 2020. One cohort included data pre-November 2020 data but did not provide dates. Continuous symptom change differences were not statistically significant for depression (standardized mean difference [SMD] = 0.12, 95% CI -0.09-0.33; 4 studies, 4,475 participants; I2 = 69.0%) and stress (SMD = - 0.10, 95% CI -0.21-0.01; 4 studies, 1,533 participants; I2 = 0.0%), but anxiety (SMD = 0.15, 95% CI 0.07-0.22; 4 studies, 4,344 participants; I2 = 3.0%) and general mental health (SMD = 0.15, 95% CI 0.12-0.18; 3 studies, 15,692 participants; I2 = 0.0%) worsened more among females/women than males/men. There were no significant differences in changes in proportions above cut-offs: anxiety (difference = - 0.05, 95% CI - 0.20-0.11; 1 study, 217 participants), depression (difference = 0.12, 95% CI -0.03-0.28; 1 study, 217 participants), general mental health (difference = - 0.03, 95% CI - 0.09-0.04; 3 studies, 18,985 participants; I2 = 94.0%), stress (difference = 0.04, 95% CI - 0.10-0.17; 1 study, 217 participants). Mental health outcomes did not differ or were worse by small amounts among women than men during early COVID-19.