Increased endorsement of TRIPOD and other reporting guidelines by high impact factor journals: survey of instructions to authors.

OBJECTIVES: To assess the endorsement of reporting guidelines by high impact factor journals over the period 2017-2022, with a specific focus on the Transparent Reporting of a multivariable prediction model for Individual Prognosis Or Diagnosis (TRIPOD) statement. STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING: We searched the online 'instructions to authors' of high impact factor medical journals in February 2017 and in January 2022 for any reference to reporting guidelines and TRIPOD in particular. RESULTS: In 2017, 205 out of 337 (61%) journals mentioned any reporting guideline in their instructions to authors and in 2022 this increased to 245 (73%) journals. A reference to TRIPOD was provided by 27 (8%) journals in 2017 and 67 (20%) in 2022. Of those journals mentioning TRIPOD in 2022, 22% provided a link to the TRIPOD website and 60% linked to TRIPOD information on the Enhancing the QUAlity and Transparency Of health Research (EQUATOR) Network website. Twenty-five percent of the journals required adherence to TRIPOD. CONCLUSION: About three-quarters of high-impact medical journals endorse the use of reporting guidelines and 20% endorse TRIPOD. Transparent reporting is important in enhancing the usefulness of health research and endorsement by journals plays a critical role in this.

Manipulative interventions for reducing pulled elbow in young children.

BACKGROUND: Pulled elbow (nursemaid's elbow) is a common injury in young children. It often results from a sudden pull on the arm, usually by an adult or taller person, which pulls the radius through the annular ligament, resulting in subluxation (partial dislocation) of the radial head. It can also be caused by a fall or twist. The child experiences sudden acute pain and loss of function in the affected arm. Pulled elbow is usually treated by manual reduction of the subluxed radial head. Various manoeuvres can be applied; most commonly, supination of the forearm, often combined with flexion, and (hyper-)pronation. It is unclear which is most successful. This is an update of a Cochrane review first published in 2009 and last updated in 2011. OBJECTIVES: To compare the effects (benefits and harms) of the different methods used to manipulate pulled elbow in young children. SEARCH METHODS: We searched the Cochrane Bone, Joint and Muscle Trauma Group Specialised Register, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL, LILACS, PEDro, clinical trial registers and reference lists of articles. Date of last search: September 2016. SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomised or quasi-randomised controlled clinical trials evaluating manipulative interventions for pulled elbow were included. Our primary outcome was failure at the first attempt, necessitating further treatment. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors independently evaluated trials for inclusion, assessed risk of bias, and extracted data. We pooled data using a fixed-effect model. MAIN RESULTS: Overall, nine trials with 906 children (all younger than seven years old and 58% of whom were female) were included, of which five trials were newly identified in this update. Eight trials were performed in emergency departments or ambulatory care centres, and one was performed in a tertiary paediatric orthopaedic unit. Four trials were conducted in the USA, three in Turkey, one in Iran, and one in Spain. Five trials were at high risk of selection bias because allocation was not concealed and all trials were at high risk of detection bias due to the lack of assessor blinding. Eight trials compared hyperpronation with supination-flexion. We found low-quality evidence that hyperpronation resulted in less failure at first attempt than supination-flexion (9.2% versus 26.4%, risk ratio (RR) 0.35; 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.25 to 0.50; 811 participants, 8 studies). Based on an illustrative risk of 268 failures at first attempt per 1000 children treated using supination-flexion, this amounted to 174 fewer failures per 1000 children treated using hyperpronation (95% CI 134 to 201 fewer). Based on risk differences data, we also estimated a number needed to treat of 6 (95% CI 5 to 8); this means that six children would need to be treated with the hyperpronation method rather than the supination-flexion method to avoid one additional failure at the first attempt.The very low-quality evidence (from four studies) for pain during or after manipulation means that it is uncertain whether there is or is not a difference between pronation and supination-flexion. There was very low-quality evidence from six studies that repeat pronation may be more effective than repeat supination-flexion for the second attempt after initial failure. The remaining outcomes were either not reported (adverse effects, recurrence) or unsuitable for pooling (ultimate failure). Ultimate failure, reported for the overall population only because of the differences in the study protocols with respect to what to do after the first attempt failed, ranged from no ultimate failures in two studies to six failures (4.1% of 148 episodes) in one study.One trial compared supination-extension versus supination-flexion. It provided very low-quality evidence (downgraded three levels for very serious risk of bias and serious imprecision) of no clear difference in failure at first attempt between the two methods. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: There was low-quality evidence from eight small trials that the pronation method may be more effective at first attempt than the supination method for manipulating pulled elbow in young children. For other outcomes, no conclusions could be drawn either because of very low-quality evidence or the outcomes not being reported. We suggest that a high-quality randomised clinical trial comparing hyperpronation and supination-flexion is required to provide definitive evidence. We recommend that this is preceded by a survey among clinicians to establish the extent of clinical equipoise and to optimise the study design and recruitment.

Interventions for cutaneous molluscum contagiosum.

BACKGROUND: Molluscum contagiosum is a common skin infection that is caused by a pox virus and occurs mainly in children. The infection usually resolves within months in people without immune deficiency, but treatment may be preferred for social and cosmetic reasons or to avoid spreading the infection. A clear evidence base supporting the various treatments is lacking.This is an update of a Cochrane Review first published in 2006, and updated previously in 2009. OBJECTIVES: To assess the effects of specific treatments and management strategies, including waiting for natural resolution, for cutaneous, non-genital molluscum contagiosum in people without immune deficiency. SEARCH METHODS: We updated our searches of the following databases to July 2016: the Cochrane Skin Group Specialised Register, CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, and LILACS. We searched six trial registers and checked the reference lists of included studies and review articles for further references to relevant randomised controlled trials. We contacted pharmaceutical companies and experts in the field to identify further relevant randomised controlled trials. SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomised controlled trials of any treatment of molluscum contagiosum in people without immune deficiency. We excluded trials on sexually transmitted molluscum contagiosum and in people with immune deficiency (including those with HIV infection). DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors independently selected studies, assessed methodological quality, and extracted data from selected studies. We obtained missing data from study authors where possible. MAIN RESULTS: We found 11 new studies for this update, resulting in 22 included studies with a total of 1650 participants. The studies examined the effects of topical (20 studies) and systemic interventions (2 studies).Among the new included studies were the full trial reports of three large unpublished studies, brought to our attention by an expert in the field. They all provided moderate-quality evidence for a lack of effect of 5% imiquimod compared to vehicle (placebo) on short-term clinical cure (4 studies, 850 participants, 12 weeks after start of treatment, risk ratio (RR) 1.33, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.92 to 1.93), medium-term clinical cure (2 studies, 702 participants, 18 weeks after start of treatment, RR 0.88, 95% CI 0.67 to 1.14), and long-term clinical cure (2 studies, 702 participants, 28 weeks after start of treatment, RR 0.97, 95% CI 0.79 to 1.17). We found similar but more certain results for short-term improvement (4 studies, 850 participants, 12 weeks after start of treatment, RR 1.14, 95% CI 0.89 to 1.47; high-quality evidence). For the outcome 'any adverse effect', we found high-quality evidence for little or no difference between topical 5% imiquimod and vehicle (3 studies, 827 participants, RR 0.97, 95% CI 0.88 to 1.07), but application site reactions were more frequent in the groups treated with imiquimod (moderate-quality evidence): any application site reaction (3 studies, 827 participants, RR 1.41, 95% CI 1.13 to 1.77, the number needed to treat for an additional harmful outcome (NNTH) was 11); severe application site reaction (3 studies, 827 participants, RR 4.33, 95% CI 1.16 to 16.19, NNTH over 40).For the following 11 comparisons, there was limited evidence to show which treatment was superior in achieving short-term clinical cure (low-quality evidence): 5% imiquimod less effective than cryospray (1 study, 74 participants, RR 0.60, 95% CI 0.46 to 0.78) and 10% potassium hydroxide (2 studies, 67 participants, RR 0.65, 95% CI 0.46 to 0.93); 10% Australian lemon myrtle oil more effective than olive oil (1 study, 31 participants, RR 17.88, 95% CI 1.13 to 282.72); 10% benzoyl peroxide cream more effective than 0.05% tretinoin (1 study, 30 participants, RR 2.20, 95% CI 1.01 to 4.79); 5% sodium nitrite co-applied with 5% salicylic acid more effective than 5% salicylic acid alone (1 study, 30 participants, RR 3.50, 95% CI 1.23 to 9.92); and iodine plus tea tree oil more effective than tea tree oil (1 study, 37 participants, RR 0.20, 95% CI 0.07 to 0.57) or iodine alone (1 study, 37 participants, RR 0.07, 95% CI 0.01 to 0.50). Although there is some uncertainty, 10% potassium hydroxide appears to be more effective than saline (1 study, 20 participants, RR 3.50, 95% CI 0.95 to 12.90); homeopathic calcarea carbonica appears to be more effective than placebo (1 study, 20 participants, RR 5.57, 95% CI 0.93 to 33.54); 2.5% appears to be less effective than 5% solution of potassium hydroxide (1 study, 25 participants, RR 0.35, 95% CI 0.12 to 1.01); and 10% povidone iodine solution plus 50% salicylic acid plaster appears to be more effective than salicylic acid plaster alone (1 study, 30 participants, RR 1.43, 95% CI 0.95 to 2.16).We found no statistically significant differences for other comparisons (most of which addressed two different topical treatments). We found no randomised controlled trial evidence for expressing lesions or topical hydrogen peroxide.Study limitations included no blinding, many dropouts, and no intention-to-treat analysis. Except for the severe application site reactions of imiquimod, none of the evaluated treatments described above were associated with serious adverse effects (low-quality evidence). Among the most common adverse events were pain during application, erythema, and itching. Included studies of the following comparisons did not report adverse effects: calcarea carbonica versus placebo, 10% povidone iodine plus 50% salicylic acid plaster versus salicylic acid plaster, and 10% benzoyl peroxide versus 0.05% tretinoin.We were unable to judge the risk of bias in most studies due to insufficient information, especially regarding concealment of allocation and possible selective reporting. We considered five studies to be at low risk of bias. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: No single intervention has been shown to be convincingly effective in the treatment of molluscum contagiosum. We found moderate-quality evidence that topical 5% imiquimod was no more effective than vehicle in terms of clinical cure, but led to more application site reactions, and high-quality evidence that there was no difference between the treatments in terms of short-term improvement. However, high-quality evidence showed a similar number of general side effects in both groups. As the evidence found did not favour any one treatment, the natural resolution of molluscum contagiosum remains a strong method for dealing with the condition.