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.

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.

Harms Reporting Is Inadequate in Systematic Reviews Regarding Hip Arthroscopy.

Purpose: To investigate the quality of harms reporting in systematic reviews (SRs) regarding hip arthroscopy in the current literature. Methods: In May 2022, an extensive search of 4 major databases was performed identifying SRs regarding hip arthroscopy: MEDLINE (PubMed and Ovid), EMBASE, Epistemonikos, and Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews. A cross-sectional analysis was conducted, in which investigators performed screening and data extraction of the included studies in a masked, duplicate fashion. AMSTAR-2 (A Measurement Tool to Assess Systematic Reviews-2) was used to assess the methodologic quality and bias of the included studies. The corrected covered area was calculated for SR dyads. Results: A total of 82 SRs were included in our study for data extraction. Of these SRs, 37 reported under 50% of the harms criteria (37 of 82, 45.1%) and 9 did not report harms at all (9 of 82, 10.9%). A significant relation was found between completeness of harms reporting and overall AMSTAR appraisal (P = .0261), as well as whether a harm was listed as a primary or secondary outcome (P = .0001). Eight SR dyads had corrected covered areas of 50% or greater and were compared for shared harms reported. Conclusions: In this study, we found inadequate harms reporting in most SRs concerning hip arthroscopy. Clinical Relevance: With the magnitude of hip arthroscopic procedures being performed, adequate reporting of harms-related information in the research surrounding this treatment is essential in assessing the efficacy of the treatment. This study provides data in relation to harms reporting in SRs regarding hip arthroscopy.

Evidence for genetic isolation and local adaptation in the field cricket Gryllus campestris.

Understanding how species can thrive in a range of environments is a central challenge for evolutionary ecology. There is strong evidence for local adaptation along large-scale ecological clines in insects. However, potential adaptation among neighbouring populations differing in their environment has been studied much less. We used RAD sequencing to quantify genetic divergence and clustering of ten populations of the field cricket Gryllus campestris in the Cantabrian Mountains of northern Spain, and an outgroup on the inland plain. Our populations were chosen to represent replicate high and low altitude habitats. We identified genetic clusters that include both high and low altitude populations indicating that the two habitat types do not hold ancestrally distinct lineages. Using common-garden rearing experiments to remove environmental effects, we found evidence for differences between high and low altitude populations in physiological and life-history traits. As predicted by the local adaptation hypothesis, crickets with parents from cooler (high altitude) populations recovered from periods of extreme cooling more rapidly than those with parents from warmer (low altitude) populations. Growth rates also differed between offspring from high and low altitude populations. However, contrary to our prediction that crickets from high altitudes would grow faster, the most striking difference was that at high temperatures, growth was fastest in individuals from low altitudes. Our findings reveal that populations a few tens of kilometres apart have independently evolved adaptations to their environment. This suggests that local adaptation in a range of traits may be commonplace even in mobile invertebrates at scales of a small fraction of species' distributions.