Assessment of Rehabilitation Journal Requirements for the Use of Reporting Guidelines and Clinical Trial Registration.

OBJECTIVE: To assess reporting guideline and clinical trial registration requirements in rehabilitation journals. DESIGN: We examined rehabilitation journals with 5-year impact factors exceeding 1.00 from the 2021 Scopus CiteScore tool, alongside the 28 journals included in the 2014 rehabilitation and disability quality improvement initiative. Journals outside the traditional rehabilitation scope were excluded. SETTING: A publicly-funded academic health center in the United States. PARTICIPANTS AND INTERVENTIONS: N/A. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE(S): The proportion of journals requiring/recommending reporting guideline use and clinical trial registration. RESULTS: Over 90% (57/63) of journals required/recommended clinical trial reporting guidelines, while 68% (39/57) specified guideline requirements for systematic review/meta-analysis protocols. The 2014 collaborative initiative journals demonstrated higher rates of requiring/recommending reporting guidelines for clinical trials (24/26; 92.3%), systematic reviews/meta-analyses (23/26; 88.5%), observational studies in epidemiology (22/25; 88%), and diagnostic accuracy studies (20/24; 83.3%). Conversely, the 2021 Scopus CiteScore journals displayed higher rates for the remaining study designs. Overall, 52/63 (82.5%) journals required/recommended trial registration. Trial registration policies were comparable, with a slight advantage favoring the 2021 Scopus CiteScore journals. CONCLUSION: Rehabilitation journals variably promoted reporting guideline use and clinical trial registration. Common study designs like clinical trials, observational studies in epidemiology, and diagnostic accuracy studies demonstrated robust requirement/recommendation rates, while less common designs like economic evaluations and animal research had suboptimal rates. Journals can enhance reporting guideline use and trial registration by directing authors to the EQUATOR Network, requiring adherence to registration and reporting standards, and clarifying language in author instructions.

Endorsement of reporting guidelines and clinical trial registration across Scopus-indexed rheumatology journals: a cross-sectional analysis.

The purpose of this study was to investigate the instructions for authors of rheumatology journals and analyze their endorsement of reporting guidelines and clinical trial registration. Sixty rheumatology journals were selected by a research librarian and an investigator through the 2021 Scopus CiteScore tool. The instructions for authors' subsection of each journal was assessed to determine endorsement of study design-specific reporting guidelines or clinical trial registration. Descriptive statistics were calculated using R (version 4.2.1) and RStudio. Of the 58 journals analyzed, 34 (34/58; 59%) mentioned the EQUATOR Network: an online compendium of best practice reporting guidelines. The most commonly mentioned reporting guidelines were CONSORT with 44 journals (44/58; 75%), and PRISMA with 35 journals (35/58; 60%). The least mentioned guidelines were QUOROM with 56 journals not mentioning the guideline (56/58; 97%), and SRQR with 53 journals not mentioning the guideline (53/57, 93%). Clinical trial registration was required by 38 journals (38/58; 66%) and recommended by 8 journals (8/58; 14%). Our study found that endorsement of reporting guidelines and clinical trial registration within rheumatology journals was suboptimal with great room for improvement. Endorsement of reporting guidelines have shown to not only mitigate bias, but also improve research methodologies. Therefore, we recommend rheumatology journals broadly expand their endorsement of reporting guidelines and clinical trial registration to improve the quality of evidence they publish.

Inequities in Epilepsy: A Scoping Review.

Objectives: The objective of this study was to complete a scoping review of current literature surrounding health inequities in epilepsy while providing recommendations for future research. Methods: During July 2022, we searched MEDLINE and Ovid Embase to find published articles pertaining to epilepsy and health inequities. Initially, authors received training. Authors then screened, and data were extracted in a masked duplicate manner. Studies published within the time frame of 2011-2021 in all countries were deemed appropriate. We screened 5,325 studies for titles and abstracts and then 56 studies for full text. We evaluated the inequities of race/ethnicity, sex or gender, income, occupation status, education level, under-resourced/rural population, and LGBTQ+. To summarize the data and descriptive statistics of our study, we used Stata 17.0 (StataCorp, LLC, College Station, TX). Results: We obtained a sample size of 45 studies for study inclusion. The most reported health inequities were income (18/45, 40.0%), under-resourced/rural population (15/45, 33.3%), and race/ethnicity (15/45, 33.3%). The least reported health inequity was LGBTQ+ (0/45, 0.0%). Discussion: The findings of our study suggest that gaps exist in literature concerning epilepsy and inequities. The inequities of income status, under-resourced/rural population, and race/ethnicity were examined the most, while LGBTQ+, occupation status, and sex or gender were examined the least. With the ultimate goal of more equitable and patient-centered care in mind, it is vital that future studies endeavor to fill in these determined gaps.

Inequities in the treatment of opioid use disorder: A scoping review.

BACKGROUND: Given the lack of access to evidenced-based OUD treatment and the corresponding overdose crisis, researchers must evaluate and report health care inequities involving the treatment of OUD. Additionally, clinicians should be aware of these inequities in the treatment of patients. METHODS: We carried out a scoping review of the literature regarding health inequities in treatment for OUD in July 2022. The study team retrieved articles published between 2016 and 2021 from MEDLINE and Ovid Embase. After authors received training, screening and data extraction were performed in masked, duplicate fashion. The team screened a total of 3673 titles and abstracts, followed by 172 articles for full-text review. The inequities that we examined were race/ethnicity, sex or gender, income, under-resourced/rural, occupational status, education level, and LGBTQ+. We used Stata 17.0 (StataCorp, LLC, College Station, TX) to summarize data and statistics of the studies within our sample. RESULTS: A total of 44 studies evaluating inequities in OUD treatment met inclusion criteria. The most common inequity that studies examined was race/ethnicity (34/44 [77.27 %] studies), followed by under-resourced/rural (19/44 [43.18 %] studies), and sex or gender (18/44 [40.91 %] studies). LGBTQ+ (0/44 [0.0 %] studies) was not reported in the included studies. Our results indicate that many historically marginalized populations experience inequities related to access and outcomes in OUD treatment. The included studies in our scoping review occasionally demonstrated inconsistent findings. CONCLUSIONS: Gaps exist within the literature on health inequities in treatment for OUD. The most examined inequities were race/ethnicity, under-resourced/rural and sex or gender, while studies did not examine LGBTQ+ status. Future research should aim to advance and supplement literature investigating health inequities in OUD treatment to ensure inclusive, patient-centered care.

Health Inequities in Orthopaedic Trauma Surgery in the United States: A Scoping Review.

BACKGROUND: Health inequities have been shown to have negative effects on patient care and the healthcare system. It is important for orthopaedic trauma surgeons and researchers to understand the extent to which patients are affected by these inequities. METHODS: We conducted a scoping review as outlined by the Joanna Briggs Institute and the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses extension for Scoping Reviews checklist. We searched PubMed and Ovid Embase for articles relating to orthopaedic trauma surgery and health inequities. RESULTS: After exclusion criteria were applied, our final sample consisted of 52 studies. The most frequently evaluated inequities were sex (43 of 52 [82.7]), race/ethnicity (23 of 52 [44.2]), and income status (17 of 52 [32.7]). The least frequently evaluated inequities were lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, and queer identity (0 of 52 [0.0]) and occupational status (8 of 52 [15.4]). Other inequities evaluated included rural/underresourced (11 of 52 [21.1]) and educational level (10 of 52 [19.2]). No trend was observed when examining inequities reported by year. CONCLUSION: Health inequities exist in orthopaedic trauma literature. Our study highlights multiple inequities in the field that need further investigation. Understanding current inequities and how to best mitigate them could improve patient care and outcomes in orthopaedic trauma surgery.

Underreporting of patient-reported outcomes in cystic fibrosis randomized controlled trials using CONSORT-PRO and RoB 2.0.

BACKGROUND: Patient-reported outcomes (PROs) are increasingly used in randomized controlled trials (RCTs) to foster patient-centered healthcare. The aim of this investigation was to assess the completeness of reporting of PROs in RCTs pertaining to cystic fibrosis (CF). METHODS: We searched MEDLINE, Embase, and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials for RCTs concerning CF that included PROs as a primary or secondary outcome. The RCTs were assessed by 2 independent investigators using an adaptation of the Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials for Patient-Reported Outcomes (CONSORT-PRO) and the Cochrane Risk of Bias (RoB) 2.0 assessment. We calculated the mean completion percentage of adherence to the CONSORT-PRO adaptation and used bivariate regression models to evaluate for associations with particular trial characteristics. RESULTS: Our systematic search returned 2302 potential studies. Fifty-nine eligible RCTs were included after full-text screening. The RCT mean completeness of reporting was 38.38% (SD = 12.74). We found the following associations between trial characteristics and completeness of PRO reporting: (1) significantly higher reporting completeness for RCTs published in journals requiring adherence to the CONSORT guideline (p-value = 0.049), (2) improved reporting completeness in studies with 'some concerns' of RoB versus 'high' RoB (p-value = 0.042), and (3) significantly better reporting completeness when the PRO is the primary outcome of a RCT (p-value = 0.006). CONCLUSION: Inadequate PRO reporting exists within RCTs focused on CF. Given that CF has substantial effects on quality of life, PROs are imperative to understand patients' experiences. We believe greater adherence to CONSORT-PRO will promote the standardization of PRO reporting and will facilitate comprehension of PROs by stakeholders, patients, and clinicians.

Reporting of Patient-Reported Outcome Measures in Randomized Controlled Trials on Shoulder Rotator Cuff Injuries Is Suboptimal and Requires Standardization.

Purpose: To evaluate the completeness of patient-reported outcomes (PROs) reporting using Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials Patient-Reported Outcome (CONSORT-PRO) in randomized controlled trials (RCTs) involving rotator cuff injuries. Methods: We performed a comprehensive search of MEDLINE, Embase, and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials for published RCTs focused on rotator cuff injuries that included at least one PRO measure. We included RCTs published from 2006 to 2020. Investigators extracted data from RCTs using the CONSORT-PRO and evaluated each RCT using the Cochrane Risk of Bias 2.0 tool. Our primary objective was to evaluate the mean completion percentage of CONSORT-PRO. Our secondary objective used bivariate regression analyses to explore the relationship between trial characteristics and completeness of reporting. Results: The initial search returned 467 results, with 33 published RCTs meeting the prespecified inclusion criteria. The mean CONSORT-PRO completeness across all included RCTs was 49.7% (standard deviation 15.43). An increase in sample size was associated with an increase in mean completeness of reporting (t = 2.31; P = .028). The Risk of Bias assessment found 29 (of 33, 87.88%) RCTs had "some concerns" for bias. We did not find any additional significant associations between completeness of reporting and trial characteristics. Conclusions: Randomized controlled trials involving rotator cuff injuries frequently use PRO measures as primary outcomes. Reporting of these PRO measures is suboptimal and may benefit from rigorous standardization. Clinical Relevance: PRO measures are increasingly incorporated as primary or secondary outcomes of RCTs. Appropriate reporting and use of state-of-the-art PRO measures may improve the dissemination of clinical knowledge from RCTs to guide treatment and determine intervention effectiveness. With increased adoption of Patient-Reported Outcome Measure Information System and adherence to CONSORT-PRO, orthopaedic literature may improve PRO reporting to optimize the interpretability of PROs and facilitate patient-centered care.