Selective outcome reporting in trials of behavioural health interventions in health psychology and behavioural medicine journals: a review.

Selective outcome reporting can result in overestimation of treatment effects, research waste, and reduced openness and transparency. This review aimed to examine selective outcome reporting in trials of behavioural health interventions and determine potential outcome reporting bias. A review of nine health psychology and behavioural medicine journals was conducted to identify randomised controlled trials of behavioural health interventions published since 2019. Discrepancies in outcome reporting were observed in 90% of the 29 trials with corresponding registrations/protocols. Discrepancies included 72% of trials omitting prespecified outcomes; 55% of trials introduced new outcomes. Thirty-eight percent of trials omitted prespecified and introduced new outcomes. Three trials (10%) downgraded primary outcomes in registrations/protocols to secondary outcomes in final reports; downgraded outcomes were not statistically significant in two trials. Five trials (17%) upgraded secondary outcomes to primary outcomes; upgraded outcomes were statistically significant in all trials. In final reports, three trials (7%) omitted outcomes from the methods section; three trials (7%) introduced new outcomes in results that were not in the methods. These findings indicate that selective outcome reporting is a problem in behavioural health intervention trials. Journal- and trialist-level approaches are needed to minimise selective outcome reporting in health psychology and behavioural medicine.

Variability in meta-analysis estimates of continuous outcomes using different standardization and scale-specific re-expression methods.

OBJECTIVES: To explore the impact of using different data standardization and scale-specific re-expression methods (i.e., processes to convert standardized data into scale-specific units) in meta-analyses using standardized mean differences (SMDs). STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING: We used data assessed by the Short Physical Performance Battery and the Barthel Index from a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials which synthesized evidence of physical activity effectiveness on the functional capacity of hospitalized older adults. We standardized the data using study-specific pooled standard deviations (SDs), an internal, and an external SD references. Bayesian meta-analyses were performed for each method to compare the posterior distributions of the meta-analysis parameters. Posterior estimates were re-expressed into scale-specific units applying different methods established in the Cochrane guidelines. RESULTS: Meta-analysis estimates depend on the used standardization method. Analyses including data standardized using the largest SD reference presented lower estimates with less uncertainty in both scales. The method applied for re-expressing SMDs into scale-specific units impacted in their posterior clinical interpretation. The most similar results across models were obtained when using the same SD reference to standardize and re-express data. CONCLUSION: Different data standardization methods yielded different meta-analysis estimates on the SMD scale. To avoid the introduction of bias, the use of a single scale-specific SD reference to standardize data is recommended and instead of study-specific pooled sample SDs. Meta-analysis software packages may therefore change their default methods to allow this method by a single scale-specific SD. To re-express the SMDs into scale-specific units, we suggest the application of the same SD reference that was used for data standardization.

Lay health workers in primary and community health care for maternal and child health: identification and treatment of wasting in children.

BACKGROUND: Since the early 2010s, there has been a push to enhance the capacity to effectively treat wasting in children through community-based service delivery models and thus reduce morbidity and mortality. OBJECTIVES: To assess the effectiveness of identification and treatment of moderate and severe wasting in children aged five years or under by lay health workers working in the community compared with health providers working in health facilities. SEARCH METHODS: We searched MEDLINE, CENTRAL, two other databases, and two ongoing trials registers to 24 September 2021. We also screened the reference lists of related systematic reviews and all included studies. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and non-randomised studies in children aged five years or under with moderate wasting (defined as weight-for-height Z-score (WHZ) below -2 but no lower than ≥ -3, or mid-upper-arm circumference (MUAC) below 125 mm but no lower than 115 mm, and no nutritional oedema) or severe wasting (WHZ below -3 or MUAC below 115 mm or nutritional oedema). Eligible interventions were: • identification by lay health workers (LHWs) of children with wasting (intervention 1); • identification by LHWs of children with wasting and medical complications needing referral (intervention 2); and • identification by LHWs of children with wasting without medical complications needing referral (intervention 3). Eligible comparators were: • identification and treatment of wasting by health professionals such as nurses or doctors (at health facilities); and • identification and treatment of wasting by health facility-based teams, including health professionals and LHWs. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors independently screened trials, extracted data and assessed risk of bias using the Cochrane risk of bias tool (RoB 2) and Cochrane Effective Practice and Organisation of Care (EPOC) guidelines. We used a random-effects model to meta-analyse data, producing risk ratios (RRs) for dichotomous outcomes in trials with individual allocation, adjusted RRs for dichotomous outcomes in trials with cluster allocation (using the generic inverse variance method in Review Manager 5), and mean differences (MDs) for continuous outcomes. We used the GRADE approach to assess the certainty of the evidence. MAIN RESULTS: We included two RCTs and five non-RCTs. Six studies were from African countries, and one was from Pakistan. Six studies included children with severe wasting, and one included children with moderate wasting. All studies offered home-based ready-to-use therapeutic food treatment and monitoring. Children received antibiotics in three studies, vitamins or micronutrients in three studies, and deworming treatment in two studies. In three studies, the comparison arm involved LHWs screening children for malnutrition and referring them to health facilities for diagnosis and treatment. All the non-randomised studies had a high overall risk of bias. Interventions 1 and 2 Identification and referral for treatment by LHWs, compared with treatment by health professionals following self-referral, may result in little or no difference in the percentage of children who recover from moderate or severe wasting (MD 1.00%, 95% confidence interval (CI) -2.53 to 4.53; 1 RCT, 29,475 households; low certainty). Intervention 3 Compared with treatment by health professionals following identification by LHWs, identification and treatment of severe wasting in children by LHWs: • may slightly reduce improvement from severe wasting (RR 0.93, 95% CI 0.86 to 0.99; 1 RCT, 789 participants; low certainty); • may slightly increase non-response to treatment (RR 1.44, 95% CI 1.04 to 2.01; 1 RCT, 789 participants; low certainty); • may result in little or no difference in the number of children with WHZ above -2 on discharge (RR 0.94, 95% CI 0.28 to 3.18; 1 RCT, 789 participants; low certainty); • probably results in little or no difference in the number of children with WHZ between -3 and -2 on discharge (RR 1.09, 95% CI 0.87 to 1.36; 1 RCT, 789 participants; moderate certainty); • probably results in little or no difference in the number of children with WHZ below -3 (severe wasting) on discharge (RR 1.23, 95% CI 0.75 to 2.04; 1 RCT, 789 participants; moderate certainty); • probably results in little or no difference in the number of children with MUAC equal to or greater than 115 mm on discharge (RR 0.99, 95% CI 0.93 to 1.06; 1 RCT, 789 participants; moderate certainty); • results in little or no difference in weight gain per day (mean weight gain 0.50 g/kg/day higher, 95% CI 1.74 lower to 2.74 higher; 1 RCT, 571 participants; high certainty); • probably has little or no effect on relapse of severe wasting (RR 1.03, 95% CI 0.69 to 1.54; 1 RCT, 649 participants; moderate certainty); • may have little or no effect on mortality among children with severe wasting (RR 0.46, 95% CI 0.04 to 5.98; 1 RCT, 829 participants; low certainty); • probably has little or no effect on the transfer of children with severe wasting to inpatient care (RR 3.71, 95% CI 0.36 to 38.23; 1 RCT, 829 participants; moderate certainty); and • probably has little or no effect on the default of children with severe wasting (RR 1.48, 95% CI 0.65 to 3.40; 1 RCT, 829 participants; moderate certainty). The evidence was very uncertain for total MUAC gain, MUAC gain per day, total weight gain, treatment coverage, and transfer to another LHW site or health facility. No studies examined sustained recovery, deterioration to severe wasting, appropriate identification of children with wasting or oedema, appropriate referral of children with moderate or severe wasting, adherence, or adverse effects and other harms. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Identification and treatment of severe wasting in children who do not require inpatient care by LHWs, compared with treatment by health professionals, may lead to similar or slightly poorer outcomes. We found only two RCTs, and the evidence from non-randomised studies was of very low certainty for all outcomes due to serious risks of bias and imprecision. No studies included children aged under 6 months. Future studies must address these methodological issues.

Using Risk of Bias 2 to assess results from randomised controlled trials: guidance from Cochrane.

A systematic review identifies, appraises and synthesises all the empirical evidence from studies that meet prespecified eligibility criteria to answer a specific research question. As part of the appraisal, researchers use explicit methods to assess risk of bias in the results' from included studies that contribute to the review's findings, to improve our confidence in the review's conclusions. Randomised controlled trials included in Cochrane Reviews have used a specific risk of bias tool to assess these included studies since 2008. In 2019, a new version of this tool, Risk of Bias 2 (RoB 2), was launched to improve its usability and to reflect current understanding of how the causes of bias can influence study results. Cochrane implemented RoB 2 in a phased approach, with users of the tool informing guidance development. This paper highlights learning for all systematic reviewers (Cochrane and non-Cochrane) from the phased implementation, highlighting differences between the original version of the tool and RoB 2, consideration of reporting systematic review protocols or full review reports that have used RoB 2, and some tips shared by authors during the pilot phase of the implementation.

Splinting for the non-operative management of developmental dysplasia of the hip (DDH) in children under six months of age.

BACKGROUND: Developmental dysplasia of the hip (DDH) describes the abnormal development of a hip in childhood, ranging from complete dislocation of the hip joint to subtle immaturity of a hip that is enlocated and stable within the socket. DDH occurs in around 10 per 1000 live births, though only one per 1000 are completely dislocated. There is variation in treatment pathways for DDH, which differs between hospitals and even between clinicians within the same hospital. The variation is related to the severity of dysplasia that is believed to require treatment, and the techniques used to treat dysplasia. OBJECTIVES: To determine the effectiveness of splinting and the optimal treatment strategy for the non-operative management of DDH in babies under six months of age. SEARCH METHODS: We searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, seven other electronic databases, and two trials registers up to November 2021. We also checked reference lists, contacted study authors, and handsearched relevant meetings abstracts. SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomised controlled trials (RCTs), including quasi-RCTs, as well as non-RCTs and cohort studies conducted after 1980 were included. Participants were babies with all severities of DDH who were under six months of age. Interventions included dynamic splints, static splints or double nappies (diapers), compared to no splinting or delayed splinting. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors independently selected studies, extracted data and performed risk of bias and GRADE assessments. The primary outcomes were: measurement of acetabular index at years one, two and five, as determined by radiographs (angle): the need for operative intervention to achieve reduction and to address dysplasia; and complications. We also investigated other outcomes highlighted by parents as important, including the bond between parent and child and the ability of mothers to breastfeed. MAIN RESULTS: We included six RCTs or quasi-RCTs (576 babies). These were supported by 16 non-RCTs (8237 babies). Five studies had non-commercial funding, three studies stated 'no funding' and 14 studies did not state funding source. The RCTs were generally at unclear risk of bias, although we judged three RCTs to be at high risk of bias for incomplete outcome data. The non-RCTs were of moderate and critical risk of bias. We did not undertake meta-analysis due to methodological and clinical differences between studies; instead, we have summarised the results narratively. Dynamic splinting versus delayed or no splinting Four RCTs and nine non-RCTs compared immediate dynamic splinting and delayed dynamic splinting or no splinting. Of the RCTs, two considered stable hips and one considered unstable (dislocatable) hips and one jointly considered unstable and stable hips. No studies considered only dislocated hips. Two RCTs (265 babies, very low-certainty evidence) reported acetabular index at one year amongst stable or dislocatable hips. Both studies found there may be no evidence of a difference in splinting stable hips at first diagnosis compared to a strategy of active surveillance: one reported a mean difference (MD) of 0.10 (95% confidence interval (CI) -0.74 to 0.94), and the other an MD of 0.20 (95% CI -1.65 to 2.05). Two RCTs of stable hips (181 babies, very low-certainty evidence) reported there may be no evidence of a difference between groups for acetabular index at two years: one study reported an MD of -1.90 (95% CI -4.76 to 0.96), and another study reported an MD of -0.10 (95% CI -1.93 to 1.73), but did not take into account hips from the same child. No study reported data at five years. Four RCTs (434 babies, very low-certainty evidence) reported the need for surgical intervention. Three studies reported that no surgical interventions occurred. In the remaining study, two babies in the dynamic splinting group developed instability and were subsequently treated surgically. This study did not explicitly state if this treatment was to achieve concentric reduction or address residual dysplasia. Three RCTs (390 babies, very low-certainty evidence) reported no complications (avascular necrosis and femoral nerve palsy). Dynamic splinting versus static splinting One RCT and five non-RCTs compared dynamic versus static splinting. The RCT (118 hips) reported no occurrences of avascular necrosis (very low-certainty evidence) and did not report radiological outcomes or need for operative intervention. One quasi-RCT compared double nappies versus delayed or no splinting but reported no outcomes of interest. Other comparisons No RCTs compared static splinting versus delayed or no splinting or staged weaning versus immediate removal. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: There is a paucity of RCT evidence for splinting for the non-operative management of DDH: we included only six RCTs with 576 babies. Moreover, there was considerable heterogeneity between the studies, precluding meta-analysis. We judged the RCT evidence for all primary outcomes as being of very low certainty, meaning we are very uncertain about the true effects. Results from individual studies provide limited evidence of intervention effects on different severities of DDH. Amongst stable dysplastic hips, there was no evidence to suggest that treatment at any stage expedited the development of the acetabulum. For dislocatable hips, a delay in treatment onset to six weeks does not appear to result in any evidence of a difference in the development of the acetabulum at one year or increased risk of surgery. However, delayed splinting may reduce the number of babies requiring treatment with a harness. No RCTs compared static splinting with delayed or no splinting, staged weaning versus immediate removal or double nappies versus delayed or no splinting. There were few operative interventions or complications amongst the RCTs and the non-randomised studies. There's no apparent signal to indicate a higher frequency of either outcome in either intervention group. Given the frequency of this disease, and the fact that many countries undertake mandatory DDH screening, there is a clear need to develop an evidence-based pathway for treatment. Particular uncertainties requiring future research are the effectiveness of splinting amongst stable dysplastic hips, the optimal timing for the onset of splinting, the optimal type of splint to use and the need for 'weaning of splints'. Only once a robust pathway for treatment is established, can we properly assess the cost-effectiveness of screening interventions for DDH.

Cannabis and cannabinoids for symptomatic treatment for people with multiple sclerosis.

BACKGROUND: Spasticity and chronic neuropathic pain are common and serious symptoms in people with multiple sclerosis (MS). These symptoms increase with disease progression and lead to worsening disability, impaired activities of daily living and quality of life. Anti-spasticity medications and analgesics are of limited benefit or poorly tolerated. Cannabinoids may reduce spasticity and pain in people with MS. Demand for symptomatic treatment with cannabinoids is high. A thorough understanding of the current body of evidence regarding benefits and harms of these drugs is required. OBJECTIVES: To assess benefit and harms of cannabinoids, including synthetic, or herbal and plant-derived cannabinoids, for reducing symptoms for adults with MS. SEARCH METHODS: We searched the following databases from inception to December 2021: MEDLINE, Embase, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL, the Cochrane Library), CINAHL (EBSCO host), LILACS, the Physiotherapy Evidence Database (PEDro), the World Health Organisation International Clinical Trials Registry Platform, the US National Institutes of Health clinical trial register, the European Union Clinical Trials Register, the International Association for Cannabinoid Medicines databank. We hand searched citation lists of included studies and relevant reviews. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomised parallel or cross-over trials (RCTs) evaluating any cannabinoid (including herbal Cannabis, Cannabis flowers, plant-based cannabinoids, or synthetic cannabinoids) irrespective of dose, route, frequency, or duration of use for adults with MS. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We followed standard Cochrane methodology. To assess bias in included studies, we used the Cochrane Risk of bias 2 tool for parallel RCTs and crossover trials. We rated the certainty of evidence using the GRADE approach for the following outcomes: reduction of 30% in the spasticity Numeric Rating Scale, pain relief of 50% or greater in the Numeric Rating Scale-Pain Intensity, much or very much improvement in the Patient Global Impression of Change (PGIC), Health-Related Quality of Life (HRQoL), withdrawals due to adverse events (AEs) (tolerability), serious adverse events (SAEs), nervous system disorders, psychiatric disorders, physical dependence. MAIN RESULTS: We included 25 RCTs with 3763 participants of whom 2290 received cannabinoids. Age ranged from 18 to 60 years, and between 50% and 88% participants across the studies were female.  The included studies were 3 to 48 weeks long and compared nabiximols, an oromucosal spray with a plant derived equal (1:1) combination of tetrahydrocannabinol (THC) and cannabidiol (CBD) (13 studies), synthetic cannabinoids mimicking THC (7 studies), an oral THC extract of Cannabis sativa (2 studies), inhaled herbal Cannabis (1 study) against placebo. One study compared dronabinol, THC extract of Cannabis sativa and placebo, one compared inhaled herbal Cannabis, dronabinol and placebo. We identified eight ongoing studies. Critical outcomes • Spasticity: nabiximols probably increases the number of people who report an important reduction of perceived severity of spasticity compared with placebo (odds ratio (OR) 2.51, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.56 to 4.04; 5 RCTs, 1143 participants; I2 = 67%; moderate-certainty evidence). The absolute effect was 216 more people (95% CI 99 more to 332 more) per 1000 reporting benefit with cannabinoids than with placebo. • Chronic neuropathic pain: we found only one small trial that measured the number of participants reporting substantial pain relief with a synthetic cannabinoid compared with placebo (OR 4.23, 95% CI 1.11 to 16.17; 1 study, 48 participants; very low-certainty evidence). We are uncertain whether cannabinoids reduce chronic neuropathic pain intensity. • Treatment discontinuation due to AEs: cannabinoids may increase slightly the number of participants who discontinue treatment compared with placebo (OR 2.41, 95% CI 1.51 to 3.84; 21 studies, 3110 participants; I² = 17%; low-certainty evidence); the absolute effect is 39 more people (95% CI 15 more to 76 more) per 1000 people. Important outcomes • PGIC: cannabinoids probably increase the number of people who report 'very much' or 'much' improvement in health status compared with placebo (OR 1.80, 95% CI 1.37 to 2.36; 8 studies, 1215 participants; I² = 0%; moderate-certainty evidence). The absolute effect is 113 more people (95% CI 57 more to 175 more) per 1000 people reporting improvement. • HRQoL: cannabinoids may have little to no effect on HRQoL (SMD -0.08, 95% CI -0.17 to 0.02; 8 studies, 1942 participants; I2 = 0%; low-certainty evidence); • SAEs: cannabinoids may result in little to no difference in the number of participants who have SAEs compared with placebo (OR 1.38, 95% CI 0.96 to 1.99; 20 studies, 3124 participants; I² = 0%; low-certainty evidence); • AEs of the nervous system: cannabinoids may increase nervous system disorders compared with placebo (OR 2.61, 95% CI 1.53 to 4.44; 7 studies, 1154 participants; I² = 63%; low-certainty evidence); • Psychiatric disorders: cannabinoids may increase psychiatric disorders compared with placebo (OR 1.94, 95% CI 1.31 to 2.88; 6 studies, 1122 participants; I² = 0%; low-certainty evidence); • Drug tolerance: the evidence is very uncertain about the effect of cannabinoids on drug tolerance (OR 3.07, 95% CI 0.12 to 75.95; 2 studies, 458 participants; very low-certainty evidence). AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Compared with placebo, nabiximols probably reduces the severity of spasticity in the short-term in people with MS. We are uncertain about the effect on chronic neurological pain and health-related quality of life. Cannabinoids may increase slightly treatment discontinuation due to AEs, nervous system and psychiatric disorders compared with placebo. We are uncertain about the effect on drug tolerance. The overall certainty of evidence is limited by short-term duration of the included studies.

Reliability of the revised Cochrane risk-of-bias tool for randomised trials (RoB2) improved with the use of implementation instruction.

OBJECTIVE: to assess the inter-rater reliability (IRR) of the revised Cochrane risk-of-bias tool for randomised trials (RoB2). METHODS: Four raters independently applied RoB2 on critical and important outcomes of individually randomized parallel-group trials (RCTs) included in the Cochrane Review "Cannabis and cannabinoids for people with multiple sclerosis." We calculated Fleiss' Kappa for multiple raters and time to complete the tool; we performed a calibration exercise on five studies, then we developed an implementation document (ID) specific for the condition, and the intervention addressed by the review with instructions on how to answer the signalling questions of RoB2 tool. We measured IRR before and after the ID adoption RESULTS: Eighty results related to seven outcomes from 16 RCTs were assessed. During calibration exercise we reached no agreement for overall judgment (IRR -0.15); IRR for individual domains ranged from no agreement to fair. Mean time to apply the tool was 168.5 minutes per study. Time to complete the calibration exercise and develop the ID was about 40 hours. After the ID adoption ID, overall agreement increased to slightly (IRR 0.11) for the first five studies and moderate (IRR 0.42) for the remaining 11. IRR for individual domains ranged from no agreement to almost perfect. Mean time to apply the tool decreased to 41 minutes. CONCLUSION: RoB2 tool is comprehensive but complex even for high experienced raters. The development of an ID specific for the review may improve reliability substantially.

Reporting of Cochrane systematic review protocols with network meta-analyses-A scoping review.

Publishing systematic review protocols is a fundamental part of systematic reviews to ensure transparency and reproducibility. In this scoping review, we aimed to evaluate reporting of Cochrane systematic review protocols with network meta-analyses (NMA). We searched all Cochrane NMA protocols published in 2018 and 2019, and assessed the characteristics and reporting of methodologies relevant to NMA. We reported frequencies for each reporting item. Forty-five protocols were assessed, including two for overviews and 43 for intervention reviews. Thirty-three (73%) were labelled as NMA protocols in the title. Forty-two (95%) justified the need of an NMA and 40 (89%) used appropriate search strategies to identify potential eligible studies. About half (24, 53%) considered the transitivity assumption when reporting inclusion criteria and 35 (78%) specified potential effect modifiers. Forty-three (96%) reported statistical software for NMA, 25 (56%) reported NMA model choice, 32 (71%) reported framework choice and 32 (71%) reported assumption about heterogeneity variances. Protocols varied in whether they reported methods for relative ranking (35, 78%), statistical inconsistency (40, 89%), reporting bias (44, 98%) and sources of heterogeneity (39, 87%). In conclusion, Cochrane NMA protocols reported multiple NMA-specific items well, but could be further improved, especially regarding transitivity assumptions. Our recommendations for NMA protocol reporting based on this scoping review could assist authors, reviewers, and editors to improve NMA protocols.

Development of a checklist to detect errors in meta-analyses in systematic reviews of interventions: study protocol.

Background: Systematic reviews underpin clinical practice and policies that guide healthcare decisions. A core component of many systematic reviews is meta-analysis, which is a statistical synthesis of results across studies. Errors in the conduct and interpretation of meta-analysis can lead to incorrect conclusions regarding the benefits and harms of interventions; and studies have shown that these errors are common. Enabling peer reviewers to better detect errors in meta-analysis through the use of a checklist provides an opportunity for these errors to be rectified before publication. To our knowledge, no such checklist exists. Objective: To develop and evaluate a checklist to detect errors in pairwise meta-analyses in systematic reviews of interventions. Methods: We will undertake a four-step process to develop the checklist. First, we will undertake a systematic review of studies that have evaluated errors in the conduct and interpretation of meta-analysis to generate a bank of items to consider for the checklist. Second, we will undertake a survey of systematic review methodologists and statisticians to seek their views on which items, of the bank of items generated in step 1, are most important to include in the checklist. Third, we will hold a virtual meeting to agree upon which items to include in the checklist. Fourth, before finalising the checklist, we will pilot with editors and peer reviewers of journals. Conclusion: The developed checklist is intended to help journal editors and peer reviewers identify errors in the application and interpretation of meta-analyses in systematic reviews. Fewer errors in the conduct and improved interpretation will lead to more accurate review findings and conclusions to inform clinical practice.

Following the science? Comparison of methodological and reporting quality of covid-19 and other research from the first wave of the pandemic.

BACKGROUND: Following the initial identification of the 2019 coronavirus disease (covid-19), the subsequent months saw substantial increases in published biomedical research. Concerns have been raised in both scientific and lay press around the quality of some of this research. We assessed clinical research from major clinical journals, comparing methodological and reporting quality of covid-19 papers published in the first wave (here defined as December 2019 to May 2020 inclusive) of the viral pandemic with non-covid papers published at the same time. METHODS: We reviewed research publications (print and online) from The BMJ, Journal of the American Medical Association (JAMA), The Lancet, and New England Journal of Medicine, from first publication of a covid-19 research paper (February 2020) to May 2020 inclusive. Paired reviewers were randomly allocated to extract data on methodological quality (risk of bias) and reporting quality (adherence to reporting guidance) from each paper using validated assessment tools. A random 10% of papers were assessed by a third, independent rater. Overall methodological quality for each paper was rated high, low or unclear. Reporting quality was described as percentage of total items reported. RESULTS: From 168 research papers, 165 were eligible, including 54 (33%) papers with a covid-19 focus. For methodological quality, 18 (33%) covid-19 papers and 83 (73%) non-covid papers were rated as low risk of bias, OR 6.32 (95%CI 2.85 to 14.00). The difference in quality was maintained after adjusting for publication date, results, funding, study design, journal and raters (OR 6.09 (95%CI 2.09 to 17.72)). For reporting quality, adherence to reporting guidelines was poorer for covid-19 papers, mean percentage of total items reported 72% (95%CI:66 to 77) for covid-19 papers and 84% (95%CI:81 to 87) for non-covid. CONCLUSIONS: Across various measures, we have demonstrated that covid-19 research from the first wave of the pandemic was potentially of lower quality than contemporaneous non-covid research. While some differences may be an inevitable consequence of conducting research during a viral pandemic, poor reporting should not be accepted.

STrengthening the Reporting Of Pharmacogenetic Studies: Development of the STROPS guideline.

BACKGROUND: Large sample sizes are often required to detect statistically significant associations between pharmacogenetic markers and treatment response. Meta-analysis may be performed to synthesize data from several studies, increasing sample size and, consequently, power to detect significant genetic effects. However, performing robust synthesis of data from pharmacogenetic studies is often challenging because of poor reporting of key data in study reports. There is currently no guideline for the reporting of pharmacogenetic studies that has been developed using a widely accepted robust methodology. The objective of this project was to develop the STrengthening the Reporting Of Pharmacogenetic Studies (STROPS) guideline. METHODS AND FINDINGS: We established a preliminary checklist of reporting items to be considered for inclusion in the guideline. We invited representatives of key stakeholder groups to participate in a 2-round Delphi survey. A total of 52 individuals participated in both rounds of the survey, scoring items with regards to their importance for inclusion in the STROPS guideline. We then held a consensus meeting, at which 8 individuals considered the results of the Delphi survey and voted on whether each item ought to be included in the final guideline. The STROPS guideline consists of 54 items and is accompanied by an explanation and elaboration document. The guideline contains items that are particularly important in the field of pharmacogenetics, such as the drug regimen of interest and whether adherence to treatment was accounted for in the conducted analyses. The guideline also requires that outcomes be clearly defined and justified, because in pharmacogenetic studies, there may be a greater number of possible outcomes than in other types of study (for example, disease-gene association studies). A limitation of this project is that our consensus meeting involved a small number of individuals, the majority of whom are based in the United Kingdom. CONCLUSIONS: Our aim is for the STROPS guideline to improve the transparency of reporting of pharmacogenetic studies and also to facilitate the conduct of high-quality systematic reviews and meta-analyses. We encourage authors to adhere to the STROPS guideline when publishing pharmacogenetic studies.

Video calls for reducing social isolation and loneliness in older people: a rapid review.

BACKGROUND: The current COVID-19 pandemic has been identified as a possible trigger for increases in loneliness and social isolation among older people due to the restrictions on movement that many countries have put in place. Loneliness and social isolation are consistently identified as risk factors for poor mental and physical health in older people. Video calls may help older people stay connected during the current crisis by widening the participant's social circle or by increasing the frequency of contact with existing acquaintances. OBJECTIVES: The primary objective of this rapid review is to assess the effectiveness of video calls for reducing social isolation and loneliness in older adults. The review also sought to address the effectiveness of video calls on reducing symptoms of depression and improving quality of life. SEARCH METHODS: We searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, PsycINFO and CINAHL from 1 January 2004 to 7 April 2020. We also searched the references of relevant systematic reviews. SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and quasi-RCTs (including cluster designs) were eligible for inclusion. We excluded all other study designs. The samples in included studies needed to have a mean age of at least 65 years. We included studies that included participants whether or not they were experiencing symptoms of loneliness or social isolation at baseline. Any intervention in which a core component involved the use of the internet to facilitate video calls or video conferencing through computers, smartphones or tablets with the intention of reducing loneliness or social isolation, or both, in older adults was eligible for inclusion. We included studies in the review if they reported self-report measures of loneliness, social isolation, symptoms of depression or quality of life.  Two review authors screened 25% of abstracts; a third review author resolved conflicts. A single review author screened the remaining abstracts. The second review author screened all excluded abstracts and we resolved conflicts by consensus or by involving a third review author. We followed the same process for full-text articles. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: One review author extracted data, which another review author checked. The primary outcomes were loneliness and social isolation and the secondary outcomes were symptoms of depression and quality of life. One review author rated the certainty of evidence for the primary outcomes according to the GRADE approach and another review author checked the ratings. We conducted fixed-effect meta-analyses for the primary outcome, loneliness, and the secondary outcome, symptoms of depression. MAIN RESULTS: We identified three cluster quasi-randomised trials, which together included 201 participants. The included studies compared video call interventions to usual care in nursing homes. None of these studies were conducted during the COVID-19 pandemic.  Each study measured loneliness using the UCLA Loneliness Scale. Total scores range from 20 (least lonely) to 80 (most lonely). The evidence was very uncertain and suggests that video calls may result in little to no difference in scores on the UCLA Loneliness Scale compared to usual care at three months (mean difference (MD) -0.44, 95% confidence interval (CI) -3.28 to 2.41; 3 studies; 201 participants), at six months (MD -0.34, 95% CI -3.41 to 2.72; 2 studies; 152 participants) and at 12 months (MD -2.40, 95% CI -7.20 to 2.40; 1 study; 90 participants). We downgraded the certainty of this evidence by three levels for study limitations, imprecision and indirectness. None of the included studies reported social isolation as an outcome. Each study measured symptoms of depression using the Geriatric Depression Scale. Total scores range from 0 (better) to 30 (worse). The evidence was very uncertain and suggests that video calls may result in little to no difference in scores on the Geriatric Depression Scale compared to usual care at three months' follow-up (MD 0.41, 95% CI -0.90 to 1.72; 3 studies; 201 participants) or six months' follow-up (MD -0.83, 95% CI -2.43 to 0.76; 2 studies, 152 participants). The evidence suggests that video calls may have a small effect on symptoms of depression at one-year follow-up, though this finding is imprecise (MD -2.04, 95% CI -3.98 to -0.10; 1 study; 90 participants). We downgraded the certainty of this evidence by three levels for study limitations, imprecision and indirectness. Only one study, with 62 participants, reported quality of life. The study measured quality of life using a Taiwanese adaptation of the Short-Form 36-question health survey (SF-36), which consists of eight subscales that measure different aspects of quality of life: physical function; physical role; emotional role; social function; pain: vitality; mental health; and physical health. Each subscale is scored from 0 (poor health) to 100 (good health). The evidence is very uncertain and suggests that there may be little to no difference between people allocated to usual care and those allocated to video calls in three-month scores in physical function (MD 2.88, 95% CI -5.01 to 10.77), physical role (MD -7.66, 95% CI -24.08 to 8.76), emotional role (MD -7.18, 95% CI -16.23 to 1.87), social function (MD 2.77, 95% CI -8.87 to 14.41), pain scores (MD -3.25, 95% CI -15.11 to 8.61), vitality scores (MD -3.60, 95% CI -9.01 to 1.81), mental health (MD 9.19, 95% CI 0.36 to 18.02) and physical health (MD 5.16, 95% CI -2.48 to 12.80). We downgraded the certainty of this evidence by three levels for study limitations, imprecision and indirectness. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Based on this review there is currently very uncertain evidence on the effectiveness of video call interventions to reduce loneliness in older adults. The review did not include any studies that reported evidence of the effectiveness of video call interventions to address social isolation in older adults. The evidence regarding the effectiveness of video calls for outcomes of symptoms of depression was very uncertain. Future research in this area needs to use more rigorous methods and more diverse and representative participants. Specifically, future studies should target older adults, who are demonstrably lonely or socially isolated, or both, across a range of settings to determine whether video call interventions are effective in a population in which these outcomes are in need of improvement.

Protocol for the development of the STrengthening the Reporting Of Pharmacogenetic Studies (STROPS) guideline: checklist of items for reporting pharmacogenetic studies.

INTRODUCTION: Large sample sizes are often required to detect statistically significant associations between pharmacogenetic markers and treatment response. Meta-analysis may be performed to synthesise data from several studies, increasing sample size and consequently power to detect significant genetic effects. However, performing robust synthesis of data from pharmacogenetic studies is often challenging due to poor reporting of key data in study reports. There is currently no guideline for the reporting of pharmacogenetic studies. The aim of this project is to develop the STrengthening the Reporting Of Pharmacogenetic Studies (STROPS) guideline. The STROPS guideline will facilitate the conduct of high-quality meta-analyses and thus improve the power to detect genetic associations. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: We will establish a preliminary checklist of reporting items to be considered for inclusion in the guideline. We will then conduct a Delphi survey of key stakeholder groups to gain consensus opinion on which reporting items to include in the final guideline. The Delphi survey will consist of two rounds: the first round will invite participants to score items from the preliminary checklist and to suggest additional relevant items; the second round will provide feedback from the previous round and invite participants to re-score the items. Following the second round, we will summarise the distribution of scores for each item, stratified by stakeholder group. The Steering Committee for the project and representatives from the key stakeholder groups will meet to consider the results of the Delphi survey and to finalise the list of reporting items. We will then draft, pilot-test and publish the STROPS reporting guideline and accompanying explanatory document. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: The University of Liverpool Ethics Committee has confirmed ethical approval for this study (reference: 3586). Dissemination activities will include presenting the reporting guideline at conferences relevant to pharmacogenetic research.

A cross-sectional audit showed that most Cochrane intervention reviews searched trial registers.

OBJECTIVE: The objective of this study was to assess current Cochrane Review practice in identifying and incorporating information from clinical trial registers. STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING: A cross-sectional study was conducted to assess a sample of new or updated intervention reviews from all Cochrane Review Groups up to February 1, 2017. Two assessors independently extracted data from each review using a pretested audit questionnaire. Data were analyzed relating to the frequency of reporting (1) the register source and search strategy; (2) the results of trial register searches; and (3) the use of trial register information in the review. RESULTS: Over 90% (236/260) of Cochrane Reviews reported searching a trial register (e.g., ClinicalTrials.gov or the WHO International Clinical Trials Registry Platform). In reviews that reported trial register searches, 39% (92/236) indicated the number of trial records retrieved and 56.8% (134/236) used information from the trial register records in the review. Trial record information was incorporated into the results (39.6%; 53/134), risk of bias assessments (53.7%; 72/134), and discussion (24.6%, 33/134) and conclusion sections (25.4%, 34/134). CONCLUSION: Most audited reviews used trial register information. Guidance may be needed to better incorporate information from these valuable resources in Cochrane Reviews to assist future research decisions made by funders and prospective study investigators.

Methodological review showed correct absolute effect size estimates for time-to-event outcomes in less than one-third of cancer-related systematic reviews.

OBJECTIVES: To evaluate in how many cancer-related Cochrane reviews hazard ratio (HR)-based absolute effects in summary of findings (SoF) tables have been correctly calculated and reported. STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING: We identified all Cochrane cancer intervention reviews that reported an HR for at least one outcome and provided a SoF table, published between January 2011 and December 2017 in the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews. RESULTS: In 28 reviews (29%) of 96 included Cochrane reviews, absolute effects in the SoF tables were calculated in a correct manner. In 23 reviews (24%), absolute effects had been correctly calculated, but there was no explanation given why authors calculated event-free survival (e.g., overall survival) throughout the review but reported number of events in SoF tables (e.g., death). Twelve reviews (13%) provided incorrect absolute effects. For seven reviews (7%), it was unclear if absolute effects were correctly calculated. In 26 (27%) reviews, no absolute effects based on the given HR were calculated. CONCLUSIONS: In less than one-third of cancer-related Cochrane reviews, absolute effect size estimates were correctly calculated and reported. There is a need for guidance on how to calculate and report absolute effect estimates based on HR data.