Examination of reporting status of pediatric oncology trials within the national library of medicine's trial database.

Finding safer and more effective treatment options are critical in progressing the field of pediatric oncology. These treatment options are discovered through completion and publication of clinical trials. The primary objective of this study was to assess the overall study characteristics of pediatric oncology clinical trials initiated between 2008 and 2021. The secondary objective of our study was to assess rates of discontinuation and reporting of results as required by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA). After acquiring pediatric oncology clinical trials from ClinicalTrials.gov, a cross-sectional study was performed. Included trials have an intervention exclusive to pediatrics and were conducted between 2008 and 2021. The results measured were characteristics of the clinical trials and their rate of discontinuation. Of the 7,930 trials originally returned from the search, 349 trials met inclusion criteria. The majority of the trials were phase 1 and 2 pharmaceutical interventions studying brain and blood cancer. Our study found that 14.9% (52) of the pediatric oncology trials were discontinued. Given the breadth of study within pediatric oncology, our overarching assessment shows that drug trials geared toward treating cancers of the brain and blood were dominant in the field. It is crucial for the advancement of science that results of trials are known. This avoids duplication of studies and waste of funds. Of the trials that were completed, 40.3% (58) did not report results to ClinicalTrials.gov. The nonreporting of this data limits the information available delaying the advancement of treatment options.

Person-centred language and HIV research: a cross-sectional examination of stigmatising terminology in medical literature.

OBJECTIVE: We sought to quantify the use of person-centred language (PCL) in research journals that publish high volumes of HIV-related manuscripts. DESIGN: In this cross-sectional study, we searched PubMed for HIV-related articles published between 1 January 2017 and 7 March 2021. After journal reduction and article randomisation, title and abstract screening was conducted among 500 studies in a masked, duplicate fashion. METHODS: Studies that were included were systematically searched for prespecified, stigmatising terms, partial terms and phrases. Prevalence rates of non-person-centred terminology were totalled, and the total number of articles adherent to PCL guidelines were reported. Fisher's exact tests were used to determine associations between PCL adherence and article funding source, type of article, continent of origin and research, among others. RESULTS: Among 237 studies included, 21.52% (51) of HIV-related publications in this cross-sectional analysis were found to be PCL adherent. Stigmatising labels such as 'HIV- or AIDS-infected' and 'HIV- or AIDS-person or patient' were used most frequently, with the former appearing in 57.38% of articles and the latter appearing in 30.80% of articles. CONCLUSION: Despite numerous guidelines and requirements for the use of PCL in research, our findings suggest that an alarming number of HIV-related articles are not following these guidelines. This is concerning because this labelling likely contributes to the persistence of stigma in HIV-centred care. The intentional use of person-centred language in medical research has the potential to minimise the use of stigmatising language among medical professionals, in medical education, in medical records and patient encounters, and thus reduce stigma.

Cancer Screening Among Current and Former U.S. Military Personnel Compared to Civilians: A Cross-Sectional Analysis of the Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System.

INTRODUCTION: Approximately 3% of invasive U.S. cancer diagnoses are made among veterans in a Veterans Affairs (VA) clinic each year, while VA patients only comprise about 1.9% of the U.S. population. Although some research has shown that veterans have higher incidence rates of cancer compared to civilians, evidence is sparse regarding possible disparities in rates of cancer screening between these populations. Thus, the purpose of this study is to compare differences in rates of screening for colorectal, lung, breast, and cervical cancers between current and former U.S. Military service members and civilians. METHODS: Using the data extracted from the Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System, we assessed the rates of cancer screening among current and former U.S. Military service members compared to civilians from self-reported surveys assessing when individuals had been screened for colorectal or lung cancer among all participants and breast and cervical cancer among women participants. Persons greater than 25 years of age were included in the cervical cancer screening, 50 years of age for colon cancer screening, and 40 years of age for the breast cancer screening-the latter based on recommendations from the American Cancer Society. We used multivariate logistic regression models to determine the adjusted risk ratios (ARRs) of current and former U.S. Military service members receiving screening compared to civilians, adjusting for age, gender, race, education, and health care coverage. RESULTS: Current and former U.S. Military service members accounted for 2.6% of individuals included for the cervical cancer screening analysis, 2.2% for the breast cancer screening analyses, nearly 10% of the lung cancer screening, and 15% of the colorectal cancer (CRC) screening analyses. Prevalence of screening was higher for current and former U.S. Military service members among lung cancer and CRC. When controlling for age, race, education, and health care coverage, current and former U.S. Military service members were statistically more likely to be screened for CRC (ARR: 1.05; 95% confidence interval: 1.04-1.07) and lung cancer (ARR: 1.32; 95% confidence interval: 1.15-1.52). The odds of having completed a cervical or breast cancer screening were not significantly different between groups. CONCLUSION: Our study showed that current and former U.S. Military service members were more likely to complete CRC and lung cancer screenings, while no significant difference existed between each population with regard to cervical and breast cancer screenings. This is one of the few studies that have directly compared cancer screening usage among civilians and current and former U.S. Military service members. Although current and former U.S. Military service members were more likely to receive several cancer screenings, improvements can still be made to remove barriers and increase screening usage due to the disproportionate rates of cancer mortality in this population. These solutions should be comprehensive-addressing personal, organizational, and societal barriers-to improve prognosis and survival rates among current and former U.S. Military service members.