Measuring continuing medical education conference impact and attendee experience: a scoping review.

Objectives: The aim was to comprehensively identify published research evaluating continuing medical education conferences, to search for validated tools and perform a content analysis to identify the relevant domains for conference evaluation. Methods: We used scoping review methodology and searched MEDLINE® for relevant English or French literature published between 2008 and 2022 (last search June 3, 2022). Original research (including randomized controlled trials, non-randomized studies, cohort, mixed-methods, qualitative studies, and editorial pieces) where investigators described impact, experience, or motivations related to conference attendance were eligible. Citations were assessed in triplicate, and data extracted in duplicate. Results: Eighty-three studies were included, 69 (83%) of which were surveys or interview based, with the majority conducted at the end of or following conference conclusion. Of the 74 tools identified, only one was validated and was narrowly focused on a specific conference component. A total of 620 items were extracted and categorized into 4 a priori suggested domains (engagement-networking, education-learning, impact, scholarship), and an additional 4 identified through content analysis (value-satisfaction, logistics, equity-diversity-inclusivity, career influences). Time trends were evident, including the absence of items related to equity-diversity-inclusivity prior to 2019, and a focus on logistics, particularly technology and virtual conferences, since 2020. Conclusions: This study identified 8 major domains relevant for continuing medical education conference evaluation. This work is of immediate value to individuals and organizations seeking to either design or evaluate a conference and represents a critical step in the development of a standardized tool for conference evaluation.

Visualizing patterns and gaps in transgender sexual and reproductive health: A bibliometric and content analysis of literature (1990-2020).

Background: Transgender people face numerous obstacles to accessing adequate, affordable, and appropriate sexual and reproductive health (SRH) services as outlined by the UN's Sustainable Development Goal 3.7 target of achieving universal access to SRH services by 2030. However, transgender SRH sits as a poorly researched area within public health that makes it difficult to understand the current dilemmas facing transgender SRH. This article reports the findings of a study aimed at taking stock of global research in transgender SRH. Methods: A bibliometric analysis, used to gain insights from the retrieved literature's metadata, alongside a content analysis were utilized to examine the growth, impact, and content of retrieved articles. Results: Nine hundred fourteen journal articles were retrieved, predominately in English (884; 96.7%). These involved 3653 authors from 46 affiliated countries. Most frequent keywords included HIV, PrEP, and gender identity; corresponding to the SRH issues studied, namely HIV/AIDs and gender reassignment. Top cited and overall articles originated heavily from US affiliated authors. Content analysis outlined the articles' inclusion of the transgender community to largely have a mixed focus with cisgender people in research, these articles largely disease-focused and conducted within cities in the United States. Conclusions: Growth in transgender SRH research was minimal until the early-2010s, after which a steep rise can be observed. Research retrieved has a disproportionate clinical and biomedical focus around HIV and related STI issues suggesting a failure to engage with reproductive justice and more comprehensive rights-based understanding of SRH. The sustained use of derogative language suggests a need for greater inclusion and awareness of trans identities within research and publishing. The dominance of the United States in authorship and as a site of research establishes the need for more geographically diverse research, trans, and LMIC-led research enquiry and creating greater opportunities for cross-cultural, comparative, and collaborative scholarly work.

Exome and genome sequencing for rare genetic disease diagnosis: A scoping review and critical appraisal of clinical guidance documents produced by genetics professional organizations.

PURPOSE: Exome and genome sequencing have rapidly transitioned from research methods to widely used clinical tests for diagnosing rare genetic diseases. We sought to synthesize the topics covered and appraise the development processes of clinical guidance documents generated by genetics professional organizations. METHODS: We conducted a scoping review of guidance documents published since 2010, systematically identified in peer-reviewed and gray literature, using established methods and reporting guidelines. We coded verbatim recommendations by topic using content analysis and critically appraised documents using the Appraisal of Guidelines Research and Evaluation (AGREE) II tool. RESULTS: We identified 30 guidance documents produced by 8 organizations (2012-2022), yielding 611 recommendations covering 21 topics. The most common topic related to findings beyond the primary testing indication. Mean AGREE II scores were low across all 6 quality domains; scores for items related to rigor of development were among the lowest. More recently published documents generally received higher scores. CONCLUSION: Guidance documents included a broad range of recommendations but were of low quality, particularly in their rigor of development. Developers should consider using tools such as AGREE II and basing recommendations on living knowledge syntheses to improve guidance development in this evolving space.

Searching for evidence in public health emergencies: a white paper of best practices.

Objectives: Information professionals have supported medical providers, administrators and decision-makers, and guideline creators in the COVID-19 response. Searching COVID-19 literature presented new challenges, including the volume and heterogeneity of literature and the proliferation of new information sources, and exposed existing issues in metadata and publishing. An expert panel developed best practices, including recommendations, elaborations, and examples, for searching during public health emergencies. Methods: Project directors and advisors developed core elements from experience and literature. Experts, identified by affiliation with evidence synthesis groups, COVID-19 search experience, and nomination, responded to an online survey to reach consensus on core elements. Expert participants provided written responses to guiding questions. A synthesis of responses provided the foundation for focus group discussions. A writing group then drafted the best practices into a statement. Experts reviewed the statement prior to dissemination. Results: Twelve information professionals contributed to best practice recommendations on six elements: core resources, search strategies, publication types, transparency and reproducibility, collaboration, and conducting research. Underlying principles across recommendations include timeliness, openness, balance, preparedness, and responsiveness. Conclusions: The authors and experts anticipate the recommendations for searching for evidence during public health emergencies will help information specialists, librarians, evidence synthesis groups, researchers, and decision-makers respond to future public health emergencies, including but not limited to disease outbreaks. The recommendations complement existing guidance by addressing concerns specific to emergency response. The statement is intended as a living document. Future revisions should solicit input from a broader community and reflect conclusions of meta-research on COVID-19 and health emergencies.

A Bibliometric Analysis of Publication Patterns in Pediatric Neurology.

Purpose: To examine the publication patterns of pediatric neurology articles in general pediatric, general neurology, and neurology subspecialty journals using a bibliometric approach. Methods: The top 5 journals in general pediatrics, general neurology and neurology subspecialties were identified using the 2017 Journal Citations Report (JCR). For general pediatric journals, we selected 4 pediatric subspecialties for comparison of publication patterns with neurology: immunology, endocrinology, gastroenterology, and respirology. For general neurology and neurology subspecialty journals, we searched both the top 5 neurology and neurology subspecialty journals for pediatric articles. Using Ovid Medline, we identified articles published between 2009-2017. Results: With regards to child neurology-based articles, 1501 were published in general pediatrics journals, 643 in general neurology journals and 685 in neurology subspecialty journals. Examination of the top pediatric journals revealed that Pediatrics published the most neurology-based articles. Neurology-based studies were published more frequently than other pediatric subspecialty studies. Of the top general neurology Neurology published the most child neurology-based articles, while Epilepsia published the most child neurology-based articles out of neurology subspecialty journals. Cohort studies were the most frequent study type across all journals. Conclusion: Our study revealed that child neurology articles are published more often in pediatric journals as opposed to general neurology and neurology subspecialty journals. We also found that in general pediatric journals, neurology-based articles are published more frequently compared to other specialties. Our results provide guidance to authors when considering submission of their pediatric neurology research.

The currency and completeness of specialized databases of COVID-19 publications.

OBJECTIVE: Several specialized collections of COVID-19 literature have been developed during the global health emergency. These include the WHO COVID-19 Global Literature Database, Cochrane COVID-19 Study Register, CAMARADES COVID-19 SOLES, Epistemonikos' COVID-19 L-OVE, and LitCovid. Our objective was to evaluate the completeness of these collections and to measure the time from when COVID-19 articles are posted to when they appear in the collections. STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING: We tested each selected collection for the presence of 440 included studies from 25 COVID-19 systematic reviews. We sampled 112 journals and prospectively monitored their websites until a new COVID-19 article appeared. We then monitored for 2 weeks to see when the new articles appeared in each collection. PubMed served as a comparator. RESULTS: Every collection provided at least one record not found in PubMed. Four records (1%) were not in any of the sources studied. Collections contained between 83% and 93% of the primary studies with the WHO database being the most complete. By 2 weeks, between 60% and 78% of tracked articles had appeared. CONCLUSION: Our findings support the use of the best performing COVID-19 collections by systematic reviews to replace paywalled databases.

Balanced Versus Unbalanced Fluid in Critically Ill Children: Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

OBJECTIVES: The ideal crystalloid fluid bolus therapy for fluid resuscitation in children remains unclear, but pediatric data are limited. Administration of 0.9% saline has been associated with hyperchloremic metabolic acidosis and acute kidney injury. The primary objective of this systematic review was to compare the effect of balanced versus unbalanced fluid bolus therapy on the mean change in serum bicarbonate or pH within 24 hours in critically ill children. DATA SOURCES: We searched MEDLINE including Epub Ahead of Print, In-Process & Other Non-Indexed Citations, Embase, CENTRAL Trials Registry of the Cochrane Collaboration, ClinicalTrials.gov, and World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Registry Platform. STUDY SELECTION: Using the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Review and Meta-analysis Protocols guidelines, we retrieved all controlled trials and observational cohort studies comparing balanced and unbalanced resuscitative fluids in critically ill children. The primary outcome was the change in serum bicarbonate or blood pH. Secondary outcomes included the prevalence of hyperchloremia, acute kidney injury, renal replacement therapy, and mortality. DATA EXTRACTION: Study screening, inclusion, data extraction, and risk of bias assessments were performed independently by two authors. DATA SYNTHESIS: Among 481 references identified, 13 met inclusion criteria. In the meta-analysis of three randomized controlled trials with a population of 162 patients, we found a greater mean change in serum bicarbonate level (pooled estimate 1.60 mmol/L; 95% CI, 0.04-3.16; p = 0.04) and pH level (pooled mean difference 0.03; 95% CI, 0.00-0.06; p = 0.03) after 4-12 hours of rehydration with balanced versus unbalanced fluids. No differences were found in chloride serum level, acute kidney injury, renal replacement therapy, or mortality. CONCLUSIONS: Our systematic review found some evidence of improvement in blood pH and bicarbonate values in critically ill children after 4-12 hours of fluid bolus therapy with balanced fluid compared with the unbalanced fluid. However, a randomized controlled trial is needed to establish whether these findings have an impact on clinical outcomes before recommendations can be generated.

Which psychosocial factors are associated with return to sport following concussion? A systematic review.

BACKGROUND: Psychosocial factors predict recurrent injury and return to preinjury level of performance following orthopedic injury but are poorly understood following concussion. Current management protocols prioritize physical measures of recovery. Therefore, the objective of this study was to describe the psychosocial factors associated with return to sport (RTS) and how they are measured in athletes who sustained a concussion. METHODS: MEDLINE, Embase, APA PsycINFO, CINAHL, and SPORTDiscus were searched through February 2, 2021. Eligible studies included original peer-reviewed publications describing psychosocial factors associated with RTS following a diagnosed concussion. The primary outcome was scales or measures employed and/or key thematic concepts. RESULTS: Of the 3615 studies identified, 10 quantitative cohort studies (Oxford Centre for Evidence-Based Medicine Level-3) representing 2032 athletes (85% male; high-school and collegiate collision/contact athletes) and 4 qualitative studies representing 66 athletes (74% male; 70% American football; aged 9-28 years) were included. We identified 3 overarching themes and 10 outcome measures related to psychosocial factors associated with RTS following concussion: (a) fear (e.g, of recurrent concussion, of RTS, of losing playing status); (b) emotional factors (e.g, depression, anxiety, perceived stress, mental health, disturbance mood); and (c) contextual factors (e.g, social support, pressure, sense of identity). CONCLUSION: Although current medical clearance decisions prioritize physical measures of recovery, evidence suggests diverse psychosocial factors influence RTS following concussion. It remains unclear which psychosocial factors contribute to a successful RTS, including the influence of sex/gender and age. Future studies should evaluate the association of psychological readiness with physical measures of recovery at medical clearance, preinjury level of performance, and risk of recurrent concussion to support RTS clinical decision-making.

Consent models in Canadian critical care randomized controlled trials: a scoping review.

PURPOSE: Our primary objective was to describe consent models used in Canadian-led adult and pediatric intensive care unit (ICU/PICU) randomized controlled trials (RCTs). Our secondary objectives were to determine the consent rate of ICU/PICU RCTs that did and did not use an alternate consent model to describe consent procedures. SOURCE: Using scoping review methodology, we searched MEDLINE, Embase, and CENTRAL databases (from 1998 to June 2019) for trials published in English or French. We included Canadian-led RCTs that reported on the effects of an intervention on ICU/PICU patients or their families. Two independent reviewers assessed eligibility, abstracted data, and achieved consensus. PRINCIPAL FINDINGS: We identified 48 RCTs of 17,558 patients. Included RCTs had ethics approval to use prior informed consent (43/48; 90%), deferred consent (13/48; 27%), waived consent (5/48; 10%), and verbal consent (1/48; 2%) models. Fifteen RCTs (15/48; 31%) had ethics approval to use more than one consent model. Twice as many trials used alternate consent between 2010 and 2019 (13/19) than between 2000 and 2009 (6/19). The consent rate for RCTs using only prior informed consent ranged from 54 to 91% (ICU) and 43 to 94% (PICU) and from 78 to 100% (ICU) and 74 to 87% (PICU) in trials using an alternate/hybrid consent model. CONCLUSION: Alternate consent models were used in the minority of Canadian-led ICU/PICU RCTs but have been used more frequently over the last decade. This suggests that Canadian ethics boards and research communities are becoming more accepting of alternate consent models in ICU/PICU trials.

RéSUMé: OBJECTIF: Notre objectif principal était de décrire les modèles de consentement utilisés dans les études randomisées contrôlées (ERC) menées par des chercheurs canadiens dans les unités de soins intensifs adultes et pédiatriques (USI/USIP). Nos objectifs secondaires étaient de déterminer le taux de consentement aux ERC à l'USI et l'USIP qui utilisaient et n'utilisaient pas un autre modèle de consentement pour décrire les processus de consentement. SOURCES: À l'aide d'une méthodologie d'étude de portée, nous avons effectué des recherches dans les bases de données MEDLINE, Embase et CENTRAL (de 1998 à juin 2019) pour en tirer les études publiées en anglais ou en français. Nous avons inclus des ERC dirigées par des chercheurs canadiens qui rapportaient les effets d'une intervention sur les patients à l'USI/USIP ou leurs familles. Deux examinateurs indépendants ont évalué l'admissibilité, résumé les données et atteint un consensus. RéSULTATS PRINCIPAUX: Nous avons identifié 48 ERC portant sur 17 558 patients. Les ERC incluses avaient obtenu l'approbation du comité d'éthique pour l'utilisation de modèles de consentement éclairé préalable (43/48; 90 %), de consentement différé (13/48; 27 %), de renoncement au consentement (5/48; 10 %) et de consentement verbal (1/48; 2 %). Quinze ERC (15/48; 31 %) avaient reçu l'approbation du comité d'éthique pour utiliser plus d'un modèle de consentement. Deux fois plus d'études ont utilisé un autre type de consentement entre 2010 et 2019 (13/19) qu'entre 2000 et 2009 (6/19). Le taux de consentement pour les ERC utilisant uniquement un consentement éclairé préalable variait de 54 à 91 % (USI) et de 43 à 94 % (USIP), contre 78 à 100 % (USI) et 74 à 87 % (USIP) pour les études utilisant un modèle de consentement alternatif/hybride. CONCLUSION: Des modèles de consentement alternatif ont été utilisés dans une minorité des ERC en USI/USIP dirigées par des chercheurs canadiens, mais ils ont été utilisés plus fréquemment au cours de la dernière décennie. Cela donne à penser que les comités d'éthique et les communautés de recherche canadiens acceptent de plus en plus les modèles de consentement alternatifs dans les études réalisées en USI et en USIP.

Health-Related Criterion-Referenced Cut-Points for Cardiorespiratory Fitness Among Youth: A Systematic Review.

BACKGROUND: Cardiorespiratory fitness (CRF), which reflects the overall aerobic capacity of the cardiovascular, respiratory, and muscular systems, is significantly related to health among youth. OBJECTIVE: The aim of this systematic review was to identify health-related criterion-referenced cut-points for CRF among youth aged 5-17 years. METHODS: A systematic search of two electronic databases (MEDLINE and SPORTDiscus) was conducted in September 2020. Only peer-reviewed studies that developed health-related criterion-referenced cut-points for CRF among youth were eligible provided they included (1) youth aged 5-17 years from the general population; (2) at least one quantitative assessment of CRF (e.g., peak oxygen uptake [[Formula: see text]O2peak]); (3) at least one quantitative assessment of health (e.g., cardiometabolic risk); (4) a criterion for health; and (5) a quantitative analysis (e.g., receiver operating characteristic [ROC] curve) of at least one health-related cut-point for CRF. A narrative synthesis was used to describe the results of the included studies. RESULTS: Collectively, 29 included studies developed health-related criterion-referenced cut-points for CRF among 193,311 youth from 23 countries. CRF cut-points, expressed as [Formula: see text]O2peak, estimated using the 20-m shuttle run test, demonstrated high discriminatory ability (median area under the curve [AUC] ≥ 0.71) for both cardiometabolic and obesity risk. Cut-points derived from maximal cycle-ergometer tests demonstrated moderate discriminatory ability (median AUC 0.64-0.70) for cardiometabolic risk, and low discriminatory ability for early subclinical atherosclerosis (median AUC 0.56-0.63). Cut-points for CRF using submaximal treadmill exercise testing demonstrated high discriminatory ability for cardiometabolic risk, but only moderate discriminatory ability for obesity risk. CRF cut-points estimated using submaximal step testing demonstrated high discriminatory ability for cardiometabolic risk and moderate discriminatory ability for high blood pressure, while those for the 9-min walk/run test demonstrated moderate-to-high discriminatory ability for obesity risk. Collectively, CRF cut-points, expressed as [Formula: see text]O2peak, demonstrated moderate-to-high discriminatory ability (median AUC ≥ 0.64) for cardiometabolic risk, obesity risk, and high blood pressure. CONCLUSIONS: Currently, there is too wide a range of health-related criterion-referenced cut-points for CRF among youth to suggest universal age- and sex-specific thresholds. To further inform the development of universal cut-points, there is a need for additional research, using standardized testing protocols and health-risk definitions, that examines health-related criterion-referenced cut-points for CRF that are age, sex, and culturally diverse. CLINICAL TRIALS REGISTRATION: PROSPERO registration number: CRD42020207458.

Reporting transparency and completeness in trials: Paper 3 - trials conducted using administrative databases do not adequately report elements related to use of databases.

OBJECTIVE: We evaluated reporting completeness and transparency in randomized controlled trials (RCTs) conducted using administrative data based on 2021 CONSORT Extension for Trials Conducted Using Cohorts and Routinely Collected Data (CONSORT-ROUTINE) criteria. STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING: MEDLINE and the Cochrane Methodology Register were searched (2011 and 2018). Eligible RCTs used administrative databases for identifying eligible participants or collecting outcomes. We evaluated reporting based on CONSORT-ROUTINE, which modified eight items from CONSORT 2010 and added five new items. RESULTS: Of 33 included trials (76% used administrative databases for outcomes, 3% for identifying participants, 21% both), most were conducted in the United States (55%), Canada (18%), or the United Kingdom (12%). Of eight items modified in the extension; six were adequately reported in a majority (>50%) of trials. For the CONSORT-ROUTINE modification portion of those items, three items were reported adequately in >50% of trials, two in <50%, two only applied to some trials, and one only had wording modifications and was not evaluated. For five new items, four that address use of routine data in trials were reported inadequately in most trials. CONCLUSION: How administrative data are used in trials is often sub-optimally reported. CONSORT-ROUTINE uptake may improve reporting.

Reporting transparency and completeness in Trials: Paper 2 - reporting of randomised trials using registries was often inadequate and hindered the interpretation of results.

OBJECTIVE: Registries are important data sources for randomized controlled trials (RCTs), but reporting of how they are used may be inadequate. The objective was to describe the current adequacy of reporting of RCTs using registries. STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING: We used a database of trials using registries from a scoping review supporting the development of the 2021 CONSORT extension for Trials Conducted Using Cohorts and Routinely Collected Data (CONSORT-ROUTINE). Reporting completeness of 13 CONSORT-ROUTINE items was assessed. RESULTS: We assessed reports of 47 RCTs that used a registry, published between 2011 and 2018. Of the 13 CONSORT-ROUTINE items, 6 were adequately reported in at least half of reports (2 in at least 80%). The 7 other items were related to routinely collected data source eligibility (32% adequate), data linkage (8% adequate), validation and completeness of data used for outcome assessment (8% adequate), validation and completeness of data used for participant recruitment (0% adequate), participant flow (9% adequate), registry funding (6% adequate) and interpretation of results in consideration of registry use (25% adequate). CONCLUSION: Reporting of trials using registries was often poor, particularly details on data linkage and quality. Better reporting is needed for appropriate interpretation of the results of these trials.

Reporting transparency and completeness in trials: Paper 4 - reporting of randomised controlled trials conducted using routinely collected electronic records - room for improvement.

OBJECTIVE: To describe characteristics of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) conducted using electronic health records (EHRs), including completeness and transparency of reporting assessed against the 2021 CONSORT Extension for RCTs Conducted Using Cohorts and Routinely Collected Data (CONSORT-ROUTINE) criteria. STUDY DESIGN: MEDLINE and Cochrane Methodology Register were searched for a sample of RCTs published from 2011-2018. Completeness of reporting was assessed in a random sample using a pre-defined coding form. RESULTS: Of the 183 RCT publications identified, 122 (67%) used EHRs to identify eligible participants, 139 (76%) used the EHR as part of the intervention and 137 (75%) to ascertain outcomes. When 60 publications were evaluated against the CONSORT 2010 item and the corresponding extension for the 8 modified items, four items were 'adequately reported' for most trials. Five new reporting items were identified for the CONSORT-ROUTINE extension; when evaluated, one was 'adequately reported', three were reported 'inadequately or not at all', the other 'partially'. There were, however, some encouraging signs with adequate and partial reporting of many important items, including descriptions of trial design, the consent process, outcome ascertainment and interpretation. CONCLUSION: Aspects of RCTs using EHRs are sub-optimally reported. Uptake of the CONSORT-ROUTINE Extension may improve reporting.

Health-Related Criterion-Referenced Cut-Points for Musculoskeletal Fitness Among Youth: A Systematic Review.

BACKGROUND: Musculoskeletal fitness is an excellent functional measure that is significantly related to health among youth. OBJECTIVE: Our objective was to identify health-related criterion-referenced cut-points for musculoskeletal fitness (MSF) among youth. METHODS: A systematic search of two electronic databases (MEDLINE and SPORTDiscus) was conducted in September 2020. Only peer-reviewed studies that developed health-related criterion-referenced cut-points for MSF among youth were eligible provided they included (1) youth aged 5-17 years from the general population, (2) at least one quantitative assessment of MSF (e.g., muscular strength), (3) at least one quantitative assessment of health (e.g., cardiometabolic risk), (4) a criterion for health, and (5) a quantitative analysis [e.g., receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve] of at least one health-related cut-point for MSF. A narrative synthesis was used to describe the results of included studies. RESULTS: Collectively, 13 studies that developed health-related criterion-referenced cut-points for MSF among 14,476 youth from 15 countries were included. Muscular strength demonstrated high discriminatory ability [median area under the curve (AUC) ≥ 0.71] for cardiometabolic risk/metabolic syndrome, sarcopenic obesity risk and bone health, and moderate discriminatory ability (median AUC 0.64-0.70) for asthma. Muscular power also demonstrated high discriminatory ability for bone health but only moderate discriminatory ability for cardiometabolic risk/metabolic syndrome and low discriminatory ability (median AUC 0.56-0.63) for cognition/academic performance. Both muscular endurance and flexibility demonstrated low discriminatory ability for musculoskeletal pain. Health-related cut-points for MSF that demonstrated significant discriminatory ability were generally higher for boys than for girls (for muscular strength and power) and generally increased with age for muscular strength and power but remained stable for flexibility. CONCLUSIONS: Data remain insufficient to establish universal health-related cut-points for MSF among youth. Despite variations in the health-related discriminatory ability of different MSF tests, handgrip strength and standing broad jump emerged as the two tests with the highest discriminatory ability. More research, using standardized testing protocols and health-risk definitions, is required to better triangulate universal health-related cut-points for MSF among youth. PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER: CRD42020207458.

Evaluating the relationship between citation set size, team size and screening methods used in systematic reviews: a cross-sectional study.

BACKGROUND: Standard practice for conducting systematic reviews (SRs) is time consuming and involves the study team screening hundreds or thousands of citations. As the volume of medical literature grows, the citation set sizes and corresponding screening efforts increase. While larger team size and alternate screening methods have the potential to reduce workload and decrease SR completion times, it is unknown whether investigators adapt team size or methods in response to citation set sizes. Using a cross-sectional design, we sought to understand how citation set size impacts (1) the total number of authors or individuals contributing to screening and (2) screening methods. METHODS: MEDLINE was searched in April 2019 for SRs on any health topic. A total of 1880 unique publications were identified and sorted into five citation set size categories (after deduplication): < 1,000, 1,001-2,500, 2,501-5,000, 5,001-10,000, and > 10,000. A random sample of 259 SRs were selected (~ 50 per category) for data extraction and analysis. RESULTS: With the exception of the pairwise t test comparing the under 1000 and over 10,000 categories (median 5 vs. 6, p = 0.049) no statistically significant relationship was evident between author number and citation set size. While visual inspection was suggestive, statistical testing did not consistently identify a relationship between citation set size and number of screeners (title-abstract, full text) or data extractors. However, logistic regression identified investigators were significantly more likely to deviate from gold-standard screening methods (i.e. independent duplicate screening) with larger citation sets. For every doubling of citation size, the odds of using gold-standard screening decreased by 15 and 20% at title-abstract and full text review, respectively. Finally, few SRs reported using crowdsourcing (n = 2) or computer-assisted screening (n = 1). CONCLUSIONS: Large citation set sizes present a challenge to SR teams, especially when faced with time-sensitive health policy questions. Our study suggests that with increasing citation set size, authors are less likely to adhere to gold-standard screening methods. It is possible that adjunct screening methods, such as crowdsourcing (large team) and computer-assisted technologies, may provide a viable solution for authors to complete their SRs in a timely manner.

Bibliometric Analysis of Neurology Articles Published in General Medicine Journals.

Importance: A significant portion of neurology literature is published in general medicine journals. Despite this, a detailed examination of publication patterns of neurology articles in these journals has not yet been carried out. Objective: To examine the publication patterns of neurology articles in general medicine journals during a 10-year period using a bibliometric approach. Design, Setting, and Participants: This cross-sectional bibliometric analysis identified the top 5 general medicine journals using the 2017 Journal Citations Report. Four other medical subspecialties (ie, immunology, endocrinology, gastroenterology, and pulmonology) were selected for comparison of publication patterns with neurology. Using MEDLINE, the 5 journals were searched for articles published between 2009 and 2018 that were indexed with the following MeSH terms: nervous system diseases, immune system diseases, endocrine system diseases, gastrointestinal diseases, and respiratory tract diseases. Data analysis was conducted from February 2019 to December 2020. Main Outcomes and Measures: Publications were characterized by journal, specialty, and study design. These variables were used for comparison of publication numbers. Results: The general medicine journals with the 5 highest journal impact factors (JIF) were New England Journal of Medicine (NEJM; JIF 79.3), Lancet (JIF 53.3), JAMA (JIF 47.7), BMJ (JIF 23.6), and PLOS Medicine (JIF 11.7). Our bibliometric search yielded 3719 publications, of which 1098 (29.5%) were in neurology. Of these 1098 neurology publications, 317 (28.9%) were published in NEJM, 205 (18.7%) in Lancet, 284 (25.9%) in JAMA, 214 (19.5%) in BMJ, and 78 (7.1%) in PLOS Medicine. Randomized clinical trials were the most frequent neurology study type in general medicine journals (519 [47.3%]). The number of publications in each of the other specialties were as follows: immunology, 817; endocrinology, 633; gastroenterology, 353; and pulmonology, 818. Conclusions and Relevance: The results of this study provide some guidance to authors regarding where they may wish to consider submitting their neurology research. Compared with other specialties, neurology-based articles are published more frequently in general medicine journals.

Methods and results used in the development of a consensus-driven extension to the Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials (CONSORT) statement for trials conducted using cohorts and routinely collected data (CONSORT-ROUTINE).

OBJECTIVES: Randomised controlled trials conducted using cohorts and routinely collected data, including registries, electronic health records and administrative databases, are increasingly used in healthcare intervention research. A Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials (CONSORT) statement extension for trials conducted using cohorts and routinely collected data (CONSORT-ROUTINE) has been developed with the goal of improving reporting quality. This article describes the processes and methods used to develop the extension and decisions made to arrive at the final checklist. METHODS: The development process involved five stages: (1) identification of the need for a reporting guideline and project launch; (2) conduct of a scoping review to identify possible modifications to CONSORT 2010 checklist items and possible new extension items; (3) a three-round modified Delphi study involving key stakeholders to gather feedback on the checklist; (4) a consensus meeting to finalise items to be included in the extension, followed by stakeholder piloting of the checklist; and (5) publication, dissemination and implementation of the final checklist. RESULTS: 27 items were initially developed and rated in Delphi round 1, 13 items were rated in round 2 and 11 items were rated in round 3. Response rates for the Delphi study were 92 of 125 (74%) invited participants in round 1, 77 of 92 (84%) round 1 completers in round 2 and 62 of 77 (81%) round 2 completers in round 3. Twenty-seven members of the project team representing a variety of stakeholder groups attended the in-person consensus meeting. The final checklist includes five new items and eight modified items. The extension Explanation & Elaboration document further clarifies aspects that are important to report. CONCLUSION: Uptake of CONSORT-ROUTINE and accompanying Explanation & Elaboration document will improve conduct of trials, as well as the transparency and completeness of reporting of trials conducted using cohorts and routinely collected data.

Successful incorporation of single reviewer assessments during systematic review screening: development and validation of sensitivity and work-saved of an algorithm that considers exclusion criteria and count.

BACKGROUND: Accepted systematic review (SR) methodology requires citation screening by two reviewers to maximise retrieval of eligible studies. We hypothesized that records could be excluded by a single reviewer without loss of sensitivity in two conditions; the record was ineligible for multiple reasons, or the record was ineligible for one or more specific reasons that could be reliably assessed. METHODS: Twenty-four SRs performed at CHEO, a pediatric health care and research centre in Ottawa, Canada, were divided into derivation and validation sets. Exclusion criteria during abstract screening were sorted into 11 specific categories, with loss in sensitivity determined by individual category and by number of exclusion criteria endorsed. Five single reviewer algorithms that combined individual categories and multiple exclusion criteria were then tested on the derivation and validation sets, with success defined a priori as less than 5% loss of sensitivity. RESULTS: The 24 SRs included 930 eligible and 27390 ineligible citations. The reviews were mostly focused on pediatrics (70.8%, N=17/24), but covered various specialties. Using a single reviewer to exclude any citation led to an average loss of sensitivity of 8.6% (95%CI, 6.0-12.1%). Excluding citations with ≥2 exclusion criteria led to 1.2% average loss of sensitivity (95%CI, 0.5-3.1%). Five specific exclusion criteria performed with perfect sensitivity: conference abstract, ineligible age group, case report/series, not human research, and review article. In the derivation set, the five algorithms achieved a loss of sensitivity ranging from 0.0 to 1.9% and work-saved ranging from 14.8 to 39.1%. In the validation set, the loss of sensitivity for all 5 algorithms remained below 2.6%, with work-saved between 10.5% and 48.2%. CONCLUSIONS: Findings suggest that targeted application of single-reviewer screening, considering both type and number of exclusion criteria, could retain sensitivity and significantly decrease workload. Further research is required to investigate the potential for combining this approach with crowdsourcing or machine learning methodologies.

Smoking cessation in individuals who use vaping as compared with traditional nicotine replacement therapies: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

OBJECTIVES: Despite the aggressive marketing of electronic nicotine device systems (ENDS) as smoking cessation tools, the evidence of their effectiveness is mixed. We conducted a systematic review of randomised controlled trials to determine the effect of ENDS on cigarette smoking cessation, as compared with other types of nicotine replacement therapies (NRT). DESIGN: Systematic review and meta-analysis using the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation approach. DATA SOURCES: MEDLINE, Embase, the CENTRAL Trials Registry of the Cochrane Collaboration using the Ovid interface, ClinicalTrials.gov and the WHO International Clinical Trials Registry Platform trials registries were searched through 17 June 2020. ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA FOR STUDIES: Randomised controlled trials in which any type of ENDS was compared with any type of NRT, in traditional cigarette users. DATA EXTRACTION AND SYNTHESIS: The primary outcome was smoking cessation, defined as abstinence from traditional cigarette smoking for any time period, as reported in each included study, regardless of whether abstinence is self-reported or biochemically validated. Secondary outcomes included smoking reduction, harms, withdrawal and acceptance of therapy. A random-effect model was used, and data were pooled in meta-analyses where appropriate. RESULTS: Six studies were retained from 270. Most outcomes were judged to be at high risk of bias. The overall quality of evidence was graded as 'low' or 'very low'. Pooled results showed no difference in smoking cessation (rate ratio (RR) 1.42, 95% CI 0.97 to 2.09), proportion of participants reducing smoking consumption (RR 1.25, 95% CI 0.79 to 1.98), mean reduction in cigarettes smoked per day (mean difference 1.11, 95% CI -0.41 to 2.63), or harms (RR 0.96, 95% CI 0.76 to 1.20), between groups. CONCLUSION: We found no difference in smoking cessation, harms and smoking reduction between e-cigarette and NRT users. However, the quality of the evidence was low. Further research is needed before widespread recommendations are made with regard to the use of ENDS. PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER: Systematic review registration number: protocol registered with the International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews (PROSPERO) on February 27th, 2020; CRD42020169416.