Gender disparities in neuropsychological assessment research in drug abuse populations: A systematic review.

Objective: To systematically review the literature on the neurocognitive effects of drug use to determine if there are significant gender differences. Methods: In April 2023, we conducted a broad search in MEDLINE (via PubMed), PsycINFO, and Embase for original research studies that used objective neuropsychological assessment to evaluate neurocognition in persons with drug use. Data extraction was performed in a masked, duplicate fashion. Results: Our initial search returned 22,430 records, of which 273 articles were included in our analysis. We found significant underrepresentation of women as participants in the studies. Twenty-one percent of studies had exclusively male participants; when women were included, they averaged only 23% of the sample. Only 49 studies sufficiently documented an analysis of their results by gender; due to the heterogeneity in study characteristics, no conclusions about cognitive differences between women and men could be made. Conclusions: Women are significantly underrepresented in the research on cognition in drug use. Increased efforts to include more women participants and consistent analysis and reporting of data for potential gender differences will be required to close this gap in knowledge, which may lead to improved substance abuse treatment approaches for women.

Evaluating the underreporting of patient-reported outcomes in carpal tunnel syndrome randomized controlled trials.

CONTEXT: In recent years, patient-centered healthcare has become a primary concern for researchers and healthcare professionals. When included in randomized controlled trials (RCTs), patient-reported outcome (PRO) measures serve a critical role in supplementing efficacy outcomes with a patient perspective. OBJECTIVES: The goals of this study are to evaluate the reporting completeness of PROs within literature concerning carpal tunnel syndrome (CTS) utilizing the Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials Patient-Reported Outcomes (CONSORT-PRO) extension. METHODS: We searched MEDLINE, Embase, and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) for published RCTs relating to CTS with at least one PRO measure from 2006 to 2020. Two investigators screened all RCTs for inclusion utilizing Rayyan (https://rayyan.qcri.org/), a systematic review screening platform. In an independent, masked fashion, investigators then evaluated all RCTs utilizing the CONSORT-PRO adaptation and Cochrane Collaboration Risk of Bias (RoB) 2.0 tool. Bivariate regression analyses were utilized to assess relationships between trial characteristics and completeness of reporting. RESULTS: Our search returned 374 publications, yet only 31 unique RCTs met the inclusion criteria. The mean overall percent of adherence for CONSORT-PRO was 41%. Our secondary outcome-assessing study characteristics-indicated significantly higher completeness of reporting in the absence of a conflict of interest statement (p<0.05), 'some concerns' for bias (p<0.005), and when journals required the use of the CONSORT statement (p<0.005). The RoB assessment determined overall suspicion for bias among included RCTs, with 35% (n=11/31) being labeled as 'high,' 58% (n=18/31) as 'some concerns,' and 7% (n=2/31) as 'low.' CONCLUSIONS: Our study indicated that the completeness of CONSORT-PRO reporting was deficient within CTS trials. Because of the importance placed on PROs in clinical practice, we recommend adherence to CONSORT-PRO prior to publication of RCTs to increase the understanding of various interventions on patients' quality of life (QoL).

An Analysis of the Evidence Informing Clinical Practice Guidelines in the Management and Treatment of Breast Cancer.

OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to assess the methodological quality and accuracy of reporting within systematic reviews (SRs) that provide evidence to form clinical practice guidelines (CPGs) in the management and treatment of breast cancer. METHODS: The 5 included CPGs for breast cancer management among National Comprehensive Cancer Network and European Society for Medical Oncology were searched for all SRs and meta-analyses. The characteristics of each study along with their methodological reporting were extracted from each SR using the PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Instrument for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses) and AMSTAR-2 (A Measurement Tool to Assess Systematic Reviews 2) tools. Our second objective was to compare SRs produced by Cochrane groups vs non-Cochrane. RESULTS: Our study included 5 CPGs for the management of breast cancer, containing 1341 total references with 69 being unique SRs we analyzed. PRISMA completeness percent had a mean 76.3% (n = 69), while AMSTAR-2 completeness score mean was 66.5% (n = 59). Cochrane SRs were found to adhere far better to PRISMA (0.91 vs. 0.74) and AMSTAR-2 (0.95 vs. 0.62) guidelines compared to the non-Cochrane SRs. CONCLUSION: The reporting quality of SRs that underpin CPGs in breast cancer management widely varies. We recommend that authors of SRs adopt a more uniform approach in assessing the quality of reporting within their studies. In addition, CPGs should use a more standardized method to seek out evidence to establish their recommendations. With improved reporting, clinicians may have increased confidence in CPGs and thus increased utilization of CPGs in clinical decision making.

Alcohol use disorder: An analysis of the evidence underpinning clinical practice guidelines.

BACKGROUND: As Clinical Practice Guidelines (CPGs) provide effective guidance for providing medical care for individuals with alcohol use disorder (AUD), the evidence behind them should be robust. OBJECTIVE: Our primary objective was to critically appraise the methodological and reporting quality of systematic reviews cited within CPGs regarding the treatment of AUD. Our secondary objective was to determine how frequently Cochrane Reviews were cited as justification and to evaluate appraisals between Cochrane and non-Cochrane reviews. METHODS: We searched PubMed to identify CPGs for the treatment of AUD published between 2015 and 2021. Systematic reviews included in each CPG were evaluated using the Preferred Reporting Instrument for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) and a validated quality assessment tool (AMSTAR-2). Additional study characteristics were recorded. RESULTS: From the screening process, 98 systematic reviews from 6 CPGs met inclusion criteria. PRISMA adherence ranged from 72% to 85% (mean of 79%). AMSTAR-2 adherence ranged from 52% to 73% (mean of 68%). AMSTAR appraisal ratings found 32 (35.6%) critically low, 10 (11.1%) low, 35 (38.9%) moderate, and only 13 (14.4%) high systematic reviews. Cochrane systematic reviews displayed greater PRISMA (0.92 vs. 0.75: p < 0.001) and AMSTAR-2 (0.90 vs. 0.61.; p < 0.001) scores compared to the non-Cochrane studies. CONCLUSION: Systematic reviews included in CPGs for AUD treatment showed variable adherence to PRISMA and AMSTAR-2 guidelines, with almost half of the systematic reviews being critically low to low methodological quality. Given the prevalence of alcohol use disorder, methodological and reporting quality recommendations are important to strengthening evidence informing CPGs.

An Evaluation of Primary Studies Published in Predatory Journals Included in Systematic Reviews From High-Impact Dermatology Journals: Cross-sectional Study.

BACKGROUND: Predatory publishing is a deceptive form of publishing that uses unethical business practices, minimal to no peer review processes, or limited editorial oversight to publish articles. It may be problematic to our highest standard of scientific evidence-systematic reviews-through the inclusion of poor-quality and unusable data, which could mislead results, challenge outcomes, and undermine confidence. Thus, there is a growing concern surrounding the effects predatory publishing may have on scientific research and clinical decision-making. OBJECTIVE: The objective of this study was to evaluate whether systematic reviews published in top dermatology journals contain primary studies published in suspected predatory journals (SPJs). METHODS: We searched PubMed for systematic reviews published in the top five dermatology journals (determined by 5-year h-indices) between January 1, 2019, and May 24, 2021. Primary studies were extracted from each systematic review, and the publishing journal of these primary studies was cross-referenced using Beall's List and the Directory of Open Access Journals. Screening and data extraction were performed in a masked, duplicate fashion. We performed chi-square tests to determine possible associations between a systematic review's inclusion of a primary study published in a SPJ and particular study characteristics. RESULTS: Our randomized sample included 100 systematic reviews, of which 31 (31%) were found to contain a primary study published in a SPJ. Of the top five dermatology journals, the Journal of the American Academy of Dermatology had the most systematic reviews containing a primary study published in an SPJ. Systematic reviews containing a meta-analysis or registered protocol were significantly less likely to contain a primary study published in a SPJ. No statistically significant associations were found between other study characteristics. CONCLUSIONS: Studies published in SPJs are commonly included as primary studies in systematic reviews published in high-impact dermatology journals. Future research is needed to investigate the effects of including suspected predatory publications in scientific research.

ACE domains and depression: Investigating which specific domains are associated with depression in adulthood.

BACKGROUND: The study of adverse childhood experiences (ACEs) has shown deleterious effects throughout adulthood. Little attention, however, is given to specific ACE domains as they relate to mental health outcomes, as most studies use cumulative ACE score models. OBJECTIVE: The current study disaggregates ACEs domains to investigate their independent effect (while controlling for each other and other demographic covariates) on receiving a depression diagnosis as an adult. PARTICIPANTS AND SETTING: Data were obtained from the Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance Survey (BRFSS; N = 52,971). METHODS: To control and account for the numerical number of ACEs, separate models were run among each ACE score (e.g., those with an ACE score of exactly two, three, etc.). An aggregate model with all participants is also included. RESULTS: Across all ACE scores, those with a history of family mental illness had the highest likelihood of receiving a depression diagnosis. The second strongest association were those with sexual abuse. No other trends were found among the six other domains. Further, those with a combination of family mental illness and sexual abuse had the highest odds of depression. CONCLUSIONS: Mental health providers should consider the numerical number of ACEs as well as the specific ACE domains (specifically, family mental illness and sexual abuse). Additionally, this provides evidence for a possible weighting schema for the ACEs scale.