Your browser doesn't support javascript.
Mostrar: 20 | 50 | 100
Resultados 1 - 20 de 3.486
GMS J Med Educ ; 38(2): Doc36, 2021.
Artículo en Inglés | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-33763521


Aim: The seminar program of the KWBW Verbundweiterbildungplus® is offered by the Competence Center for Postgraduate Medical Education in Baden-Württemberg (KWBW) for physicians specializing in general practice (GP trainees). Attendance is a voluntary one comprised of 48 curricular units of 45 minutes each per GP trainee. This seminar program is meant to be attended in parallel to the postgraduate medical education in clinic or practice. The intention behind this project was to develop objectives, topics and a feasible structure for a seminar curriculum while taking time and financial constraints into account. Method: The Kern cycle was applied in an open, modified nominal group consensus technique in the form of an iterative process. Participating were 17 experts from the departments of general practice at the universities in Freiburg, Heidelberg, Tuebingen and Ulm, plus a pediatrician. Results: The main objective was defined as empowering GP trainees to independently provide high-quality primary care, including in rural areas. A basic curriculum was defined based on relevant frameworks, such as the 2018 Model Regulation for Postgraduate Medical Training (Musterweiterbildungsordnung/MWBO) and the Competency-based Curriculum General Practice (KCA). Overall, the seminar curriculum has 62 basic modules with 2 curricular units each (e.g. Basic Principles of General Practice, Chest Pain, Billing) and another 58 two-unit modules on variable topics (e.g. digitalization, travel medicine) adding up to 240 (124+116) curricular units. A blueprint with a rotation schedule for all of the teaching sites in Baden-Württemberg allows regular attendance by n=400 GP trainees over a period of five years, with individual variability in terms of program length. Conclusion: The model entails a five-year, flexible program to accompany the postgraduate medical education in general practice which can also be implemented in multicenter programs and those with high enrollments. The model's focus is on acquisition of core competencies for general practice. Despite the current shift to eLearning seminars due to SARS-CoV, the program's implementation is being continued, constantly evaluated, and used to further develop the KWBW Verbundweiterbildungplus® program.

Competencia Clínica , Curriculum , Educación de Postgrado en Medicina , Medicina General/educación , Médicos Generales/educación , Universidades , Alemania , Humanos , Informe de Investigación
BMC Med ; 19(1): 46, 2021 02 23.
Artículo en Inglés | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-33618741


BACKGROUND: Following the initial identification of the 2019 coronavirus disease (covid-19), the subsequent months saw substantial increases in published biomedical research. Concerns have been raised in both scientific and lay press around the quality of some of this research. We assessed clinical research from major clinical journals, comparing methodological and reporting quality of covid-19 papers published in the first wave (here defined as December 2019 to May 2020 inclusive) of the viral pandemic with non-covid papers published at the same time. METHODS: We reviewed research publications (print and online) from The BMJ, Journal of the American Medical Association (JAMA), The Lancet, and New England Journal of Medicine, from first publication of a covid-19 research paper (February 2020) to May 2020 inclusive. Paired reviewers were randomly allocated to extract data on methodological quality (risk of bias) and reporting quality (adherence to reporting guidance) from each paper using validated assessment tools. A random 10% of papers were assessed by a third, independent rater. Overall methodological quality for each paper was rated high, low or unclear. Reporting quality was described as percentage of total items reported. RESULTS: From 168 research papers, 165 were eligible, including 54 (33%) papers with a covid-19 focus. For methodological quality, 18 (33%) covid-19 papers and 83 (73%) non-covid papers were rated as low risk of bias, OR 6.32 (95%CI 2.85 to 14.00). The difference in quality was maintained after adjusting for publication date, results, funding, study design, journal and raters (OR 6.09 (95%CI 2.09 to 17.72)). For reporting quality, adherence to reporting guidelines was poorer for covid-19 papers, mean percentage of total items reported 72% (95%CI:66 to 77) for covid-19 papers and 84% (95%CI:81 to 87) for non-covid. CONCLUSIONS: Across various measures, we have demonstrated that covid-19 research from the first wave of the pandemic was potentially of lower quality than contemporaneous non-covid research. While some differences may be an inevitable consequence of conducting research during a viral pandemic, poor reporting should not be accepted.

/epidemiología , Publicaciones Periódicas como Asunto/normas , Calidad de la Atención de Salud/normas , Investigación Biomédica , Humanos , Proyectos de Investigación/normas , Informe de Investigación
Front Public Health ; 9: 619129, 2021.
Artículo en Inglés | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-33585393


The novel coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) and associated pandemic has resulted in systemic changes to much of life, affecting both physical and mental health. Time spent outside is associated with positive mental health; however, opportunities to be outside were likely affected by the COVID-19 public health restrictions that encouraged people not to leave their homes unless it was required. This study investigated the impact of acute COVID-19 public health restrictions on outside time in April 2020, and quantified the association between outside time and both stress and positive mental health, using secondary analyses of cross-sectional data from the COVID and Well-being Study. Participants (n = 3,291) reported demographics, health behaviors, amount of time they spent outside pre/post COVID-19 public health restrictions (categorized as increased, maintained, or decreased), current stress (Perceived Stress Scale-4), and positive mental health (Short Warwick-Edinburgh Mental Well-being Scale). Outside time was lower following COVID-19 restrictions (p < 0.001; Cohen's d = -0.19). Participants who increased or maintained outside time following COVID-19 restrictions reported lower stress (p < 0.001, 5.93 [5.74-6.12], Hedges' g = -0.18; p < 0.001, mean = 5.85 [5.67-6.02], Hedges' g = -0.21; respectively) and higher positive mental health (p < 0.001, 24.49 [24.20-24.77], Hedges' g = 0.21; p < 0.001, 24.78 [24.52-25.03], Hedges' g = 0.28) compared to those who decreased outside time. These findings indicate that there are likely to be negative stress and mental health implications if strategies are not implemented to encourage and maintain safe time outside during large-scale workplace and societal changes (e.g., during a pandemic).

Salud Mental/tendencias , Salud Pública , Cuarentena , Informe de Investigación , Adulto , Estudios Transversales , Femenino , Humanos , Masculino , Persona de Mediana Edad , Estrés Psicológico/psicología , Encuestas y Cuestionarios
Med Ref Serv Q ; 40(1): 103-109, 2021.
Artículo en Inglés | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-33625331


LitCovid is a curated literature hub with more than 60,000 articles about the novel coronavirus and the disease it causes-COVID-19. It is updated daily with scientific information from new PubMed articles that are relevant to COVID-19. Relevant articles are manually assigned to eight broad categories for ease of searching: general, mechanism, transmission, diagnosis, treatment, prevention, case report, and forecasting. Users can filter by location and what clinical trials are happening. As a centralized location curated daily with the most authoritative information on coronavirus and COVID-19, LitCovid is an effective source of credible up-to-date research.

Investigación Biomédica , Bases de Datos Factuales , Difusión de la Información/métodos , PubMed/organización & administración , Informe de Investigación , Humanos , National Library of Medicine (U.S.) , Estados Unidos
Med Care ; 59: S11-S16, 2021 02 01.
Artículo en Inglés | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-33438877


BACKGROUND: Suicide rates for women veterans are increasing faster than for nonveterans. The 2017 suicide rate for women veterans was more than double that for women nonveterans. However, research to inform improved suicide prevention for women veterans is scant. OBJECTIVES: To accelerate research on women veterans' unique risks and resiliencies for suicide, the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Women's Health Research Network launched a Women Veterans Suicide Prevention Research Work Group to target technical support for researchers, promote collaboration with national VA program offices, and ultimately increase dissemination and translation of research into clinical practice, public health strategies, and policies. The objective of this paper is to report on the process and outcomes of the Work Group's strategic planning efforts to identify and fill gaps in suicide prevention research among women veterans. METHODS: An in-person meeting of 20 researchers and operational leaders was convened to summarize existing research evidence and identify research priorities and challenges. RESULTS: Research priorities included civilian reintegration, community connections, psychosocial stressors (eg, social determinants of health) and trauma, risk assessment, clinical interventions, upstream prevention, and health care access. The importance of increasing evidence on gender differences and for women veterans not using VA health care was emphasized. CONCLUSIONS: Research to inform suicide prevention tailored to meet women veterans' needs is essential; however, many priorities and challenges remain unaddressed. Although Work Group efforts have achieved funding gains, further work to formalize, promote and meet the demands of a suicide prevention research agenda for women veterans requires is ongoing focus.

Investigación sobre Servicios de Salud , Suicidio/prevención & control , Veteranos , Salud de la Mujer , Femenino , Humanos , Informe de Investigación , Suicidio/legislación & jurisprudencia , Estados Unidos , United States Department of Veterans Affairs
Trials ; 22(1): 59, 2021 Jan 15.
Artículo en Inglés | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-33451350


BACKGROUND: Several drugs are being repurposed for the treatment of the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic based on in vitro or early clinical findings. As these drugs are being used in varied regimens and dosages, it is important to enable synthesis of existing safety data from clinical trials. However, availability of safety information is limited by a lack of timely reporting of overall clinical trial results on public registries or through academic publication. We aimed to analyse the evidence gap in this data by conducting a rapid review of results posting on and in academic publications to quantify the number of trials missing results for drugs potentially being repurposed for COVID-19. METHODS: was searched for 19 drugs that have been identified as potential treatments for COVID-19. Relevant clinical trials for any prior indication were listed by identifier (NCT number) and checked for results and for timely result reporting (within 395 days of the primary completion date). Additionally, PubMed and Google Scholar were searched to identify publications of results not listed on the registry. A second, blinded search of 10% of trials was conducted to assess reviewer concordance. RESULTS: Of 3754 completed trials, 1516 (40.4%) did not post results on or in the academic literature. Tabular results were available on for 1172 (31.2%) completed trials. A further 1066 (28.4%) had published results in the academic literature, but did not report results on . Key drugs missing clinical trial results include hydroxychloroquine (37.0% completed trials unreported), favipiravir (77.8%) and lopinavir (40.5%). CONCLUSIONS: There is an important evidence gap for the safety of drugs being repurposed for COVID-19. This uncertainty could cause unnecessary additional morbidity and mortality during the pandemic. We recommend caution in experimental drug use for non-severe disease and urge clinical trial sponsors to report missing results retrospectively.

Antivirales/uso terapéutico , Ensayos Clínicos como Asunto , Inhibidores Enzimáticos/uso terapéutico , Sistema de Registros , Informe de Investigación , Amidas/uso terapéutico , Combinación de Medicamentos , Reposicionamiento de Medicamentos , Medicina Basada en la Evidencia , Humanos , Hidroxicloroquina/uso terapéutico , Lopinavir/uso terapéutico , PubMed , Pirazinas/uso terapéutico , Proyectos de Investigación , Ritonavir/uso terapéutico
Arch. argent. pediatr ; 118(6): 423-426, dic 2020. tab, ilus
Artículo en Inglés, Español | LILACS, BINACIS | ID: biblio-1146113


Introducción. A pesar de la magnitud de la pandemia por COVID-19, la información sobre su desarrollo en pediatría es aún limitada. Se describen las características de pacientes hospitalizados por COVID-19 en un hospital pediátrico durante los primeros tres meses de la pandemia.Método. Estudio descriptivo, que incluyó a todos los pacientes hospitalizados por COVID-19, desde el 1/4/2020 al 30/6/2020.Resultados. Se hospitalizaron 191 pacientes por COVID-19; la edad mediana fue 7,7 años; el 89 % presentaban antecedente de contacto. El 35,6 % se consideraron asintomáticos; el 61,2 %, leves, y el 3,2 %, moderados (no se observaron pacientes graves). Ninguno recibió tratamiento específico para la enfermedad. Los síntomas más frecuentes fueron fiebre, odinofagia y tos. La duración de la hospitalización tuvo una mediana de 6 días.Conclusión. Se reportaron 191 casos de niños y adolescentes hospitalizados por COVID-19. La mayoría fueron asintomáticos o presentaron enfermedad leve.

Introduction. Despite the magnitude of the COVID-19 pandemic, the information about its development in pediatrics is still limited. This report describes the characteristics of patients admitted to a children's hospital due to COVID-19 during the first three months of the pandemic.Method. Descriptive study including all patients hospitalized due to COVID-19 between 4/1/2020 and 6/30/2020.Results. A total of 191 patients were hospitalized due to COVID-19; their median age was 7.7 years; 89 % had a history of close contact. Of them, 35.6 % were considered asymptomatic; 61.2 %, mild cases; and 3.2 %, moderate cases (no severe cases). None of them received a specific treatment for the disease. The most common symptoms were fever, sore throat, and cough. The median length of stay was 6 days.Conclusion. A total of 191 cases of children and adolescents admitted due to COVID-19 are reported. Most were asymptomatic or presented with a mild disease

Humanos , Masculino , Femenino , Preescolar , Niño , Adolescente , Infecciones por Coronavirus , Betacoronavirus , Pediatría , Niño Hospitalizado , Epidemiología Descriptiva , Informe de Investigación , Fiebre
Lancet Digit Health ; 2(10): e537-e548, 2020 10.
Artículo en Inglés | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-33328048


The CONSORT 2010 statement provides minimum guidelines for reporting randomised trials. Its widespread use has been instrumental in ensuring transparency in the evaluation of new interventions. More recently, there has been a growing recognition that interventions involving artificial intelligence (AI) need to undergo rigorous, prospective evaluation to demonstrate impact on health outcomes. The CONSORT-AI (Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials-Artificial Intelligence) extension is a new reporting guideline for clinical trials evaluating interventions with an AI component. It was developed in parallel with its companion statement for clinical trial protocols: SPIRIT-AI (Standard Protocol Items: Recommendations for Interventional Trials-Artificial Intelligence). Both guidelines were developed through a staged consensus process involving literature review and expert consultation to generate 29 candidate items, which were assessed by an international multi-stakeholder group in a two-stage Delphi survey (103 stakeholders), agreed upon in a two-day consensus meeting (31 stakeholders), and refined through a checklist pilot (34 participants). The CONSORT-AI extension includes 14 new items that were considered sufficiently important for AI interventions that they should be routinely reported in addition to the core CONSORT 2010 items. CONSORT-AI recommends that investigators provide clear descriptions of the AI intervention, including instructions and skills required for use, the setting in which the AI intervention is integrated, the handling of inputs and outputs of the AI intervention, the human-AI interaction and provision of an analysis of error cases. CONSORT-AI will help promote transparency and completeness in reporting clinical trials for AI interventions. It will assist editors and peer reviewers, as well as the general readership, to understand, interpret, and critically appraise the quality of clinical trial design and risk of bias in the reported outcomes.

Inteligencia Artificial , Ensayos Clínicos como Asunto/métodos , Guías como Asunto , Edición , Proyectos de Investigación , Informe de Investigación , Lista de Verificación , Consenso , Técnica Delfos , Revelación , Humanos
Lancet Digit Health ; 2(10): e549-e560, 2020 10.
Artículo en Inglés | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-33328049


The SPIRIT 2013 statement aims to improve the completeness of clinical trial protocol reporting by providing evidence-based recommendations for the minimum set of items to be addressed. This guidance has been instrumental in promoting transparent evaluation of new interventions. More recently, there has been a growing recognition that interventions involving artificial intelligence (AI) need to undergo rigorous, prospective evaluation to demonstrate their impact on health outcomes. The SPIRIT-AI (Standard Protocol Items: Recommendations for Interventional Trials-Artificial Intelligence) extension is a new reporting guideline for clinical trial protocols evaluating interventions with an AI component. It was developed in parallel with its companion statement for trial reports: CONSORT-AI (Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials-Artificial Intelligence). Both guidelines were developed through a staged consensus process involving literature review and expert consultation to generate 26 candidate items, which were consulted upon by an international multi-stakeholder group in a two-stage Delphi survey (103 stakeholders), agreed upon in a consensus meeting (31 stakeholders) and refined through a checklist pilot (34 participants). The SPIRIT-AI extension includes 15 new items that were considered sufficiently important for clinical trial protocols of AI interventions. These new items should be routinely reported in addition to the core SPIRIT 2013 items. SPIRIT-AI recommends that investigators provide clear descriptions of the AI intervention, including instructions and skills required for use, the setting in which the AI intervention will be integrated, considerations for the handling of input and output data, the human-AI interaction and analysis of error cases. SPIRIT-AI will help promote transparency and completeness for clinical trial protocols for AI interventions. Its use will assist editors and peer reviewers, as well as the general readership, to understand, interpret, and critically appraise the design and risk of bias for a planned clinical trial.

Inteligencia Artificial , Ensayos Clínicos como Asunto/métodos , Guías como Asunto , Edición , Proyectos de Investigación , Informe de Investigación , Lista de Verificación , Consenso , Técnica Delfos , Revelación , Humanos
Rev. Saúde Pública Paraná (Online) ; 3(supl. 1): 118-128, dez. 11, 2020.
Artículo en Portugués | LILACS, Coleciona SUS, CONASS, SESA-PR | ID: biblio-1150981


A pandemia por Covid-19 exigiu a reorganização dos serviços da saúde, inclusive da saúde mental. Este artigo é um relato de experiência, estruturado por meio de abordagem crítico reflexiva e descritiva, sobre as ações da Secretaria de Estado da Saúde do Paraná para favorecer a reorganização da Atenção à Saúde Mental diante do surto de coronavírus. Foi elaborada uma Nota Orientativa para possibilitar a manutenção do cuidado para usuários anteriormente atendidos pela Rede, assim como o acompanhamento daqueles que possam apresentar sofrimento mental em decorrência desse período de pandemia. (AU)

The pandemic of Covid-19 required the reorganization of health services, including the mental health. This article is an experience report, structured through a critical reflective and descriptive approach, about the actions of the Paraná State Department of Health to favor the reorganization of the Mental Health Care related to the coronavirus outbreak. It was elaborated a guidance note to enable the maintenance for users previously attended by the network, as well as tracking the users that can present mental suffering as a result of this pandemic period. (AU)

Estrés Psicológico , Salud Mental , Infecciones por Coronavirus , Atención a la Salud , Informe de Investigación
Rev. Saúde Pública Paraná (Online) ; 3(supl. 1): 129-139, dez. 11, 2020.
Artículo en Portugués | LILACS, Coleciona SUS, CONASS, SESA-PR | ID: biblio-1150983


A doença Covid-19 atinge com gravidade pessoas acima dos 60 anos, em especial aquelas com comorbidades. A rapidez com que o vírus é transmitido exige conduta rápida na prevenção e adequado manejo, levando em consideração as fragilidades dessa população. Este relato de experiência tem por objeto descrever atividades desenvolvidas pela Divisão de Saúde do Idoso da Secretaria de Estado da Saúde do Paraná, de janeiro a julho de 2020, com vis-tas a contribuir nas tomadas de decisões de gestores e profissionais de saúde, com enfoque na saúde de idosos institucionalizados. São apresentadas duas Normas Orientativas: Atendimento dos Idosos Frente à Pandemia Covid-19 e Medidas de Prevenção, Controle e Testagem para Covid-19 em Instituição de Longa Permanência para Idosos. Descreve-se a organização e execução de videoconferência e do ciclo de web ­ Idosos e a Covid-19. A pandemia exige ação e inovação com vistas à proteção do idoso neste momento de risco. (AU)

The coronavirus hits more acutely the age group of those over 60 years old, especially those with chronic diseases. The speed at which the virus is transmitted demands a quick response in its prevention and adequate management, keeping in mind the frailties of this age group. This report describes from personal experience the development of the actions taken by the Senior Citizen Health Division of the Health Secretary of the Brazilian state of Paraná from March to July 2020. The objective is to contribute to the decisions of health officials and managers, with the focus on institutionalized senior ci-tizens. The following guidelines are presented: Treatment of seniors facing the Coving-19 pandemic and methods of prevention and Instituting long-term control and testing for Covid-19 for the elderly. Described in this report also is the series of videoconferences regarding seniors and Covid-19. This pandemic demands swift action and innovation to protect the elderly in this time of high risk. (AU)

Humanos , Anciano , Anciano de 80 o más Años , Salud del Anciano , Infecciones por Coronavirus , Prevención de Enfermedades , Informe de Investigación
Rev. Saúde Pública Paraná (Online) ; 3(supl. 1): 189-197, dez. 11, 2020.
Artículo en Portugués | LILACS, Coleciona SUS, CONASS, SESA-PR | ID: biblio-1151228


Estudo descritivo, em formato de comunicação breve, com o objetivo de relatar ajustes efetuados no Sistema Estadual de Regulação no período de março a julho/agosto de 2020, que possibilitam o levantamento de dados relacionados com Covid-19. As informações foram levantadas a partir de anotações pessoais das reuniões, planilhas setoriais, comunicados oficiais e alterações observadas no referido sistema. Algumas adequações realizadas foram criação de novos campos, relatórios e integração entre sistemas de uso estadual. Com isso, permitiu-se acesso a dados e informações que formam uma base mais consistente para tomar decisões no enfrentamento da pande-mia causada pela Covid-19. (AU)

Descriptive study, in a brief communication format, with the objective of reporting adjustments made in the State Regulation System in the period from March to July/August 2020, which make it possible to survey data related to Covid-19. The information was gathered from personal notes of meetings, sector spreadsheets, official communications and changes observed in that system. Some adjustments were made to create new fields, reports, and integration between state use systems. This allowed access to data and information that form a more consistent basis to make decisions in facing the pandemic caused by Covid-19. (AU)

Control Social Formal , Salud Pública , Infecciones por Coronavirus , Información , Informe de Investigación
Int J Paediatr Dent ; 31 Suppl 1: 4-13, 2020 Dec.
Artículo en Inglés | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-33314319


BACKGROUND: Even though considered as studies with high methodological power, many RCTs in paediatric dentistry do not have essential quality items in their design, development, and report, making results' reliability questionable, replication challenging to conduct, wasting time, money, and efforts, and even exposing the participants to research for no benefit. AIM: We addressed the main topics related to transparency in clinical research, with an emphasis in paediatric dentistry. DESIGN: We searched for all controlled clinical trials published from January 2019 up to July 2020 in the three paediatric dentistry journals with high journal Impact Factor, indexed on Medline. These papers were assessed for transparency according to Open Science practices and regarding reporting accuracy using some items required by CONSORT. RESULTS: 53.6% of the studies declared registration, 75% had sample size calculation, 98.2% reported randomisation, and from those, 65.4% explained the randomisation method. Besides that, no study shared their data, and 6.8% were published in open access format. CONCLUSIONS: Unfortunately, a large proportion of RCTs in paediatric dental research show a lack of transparency and reproducibility.

Investigación Dental , Informe de Investigación , Niño , Humanos , Factor de Impacto de la Revista , Publicaciones , Ensayos Clínicos Controlados Aleatorios como Asunto , Reproducibilidad de los Resultados , Proyectos de Investigación
PLoS One ; 15(12): e0243091, 2020.
Artículo en Inglés | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-33326429


BACKGROUND: Systematic reviews with or without meta-analyses (SR/MAs) are strongly encouraged to work from a protocol to facilitate high quality, transparent methodology. The completeness of reporting of a protocol (PRISMA-P) and manuscript (PRISMA) is essential to the quality appraisal (AMSTAR-2) and appropriate use of SR/MAs in making treatment decisions. OBJECTIVES: The objectives of this study were to describe the completeness of reporting and quality of SR/MAs, assess the correlations between PRISMA-P, PRISMA, and AMSTAR-2, and to identify reporting characteristics between similar items of PRISMA-P and PRISMA. METHODS: We performed a systematic review of Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus SR/MAs of hypoglycemic agents with publicly available protocols. Cochrane reviews, guidelines, and specific types of MA were excluded. Two reviewers independently, (i) searched PubMed and Embase between 1/1/2015 to 20/3/2019; (ii) identified protocols of included studies by searching the manuscript bibliography, supplementary material, PROSPERO, and Google; (iii) completed PRISMA-P, PRISMA, and AMSTAR-2 tools. Data analysis included descriptive statistics, Pearson correlation, and multivariable linear regression. RESULTS: Of 357 relevant SR/MAs, 51 had available protocols and were included. The average score for PRISMA-P was 15.8±3.3 (66%; maximum 24) and 25.2±1.1 (93%; maximum 27) for PRISMA. The quality of SR/MAs assessed using the AMSTAR-2 tool identified an overall poor quality (63% critically low, 18% low, 8% moderate, 12% high). The correlation between the PRISMA-P and PRISMA was not significant (r = 0.264; p = 0.06). Correlation was significant between PRISMA-P and AMSTAR-2 (r = 0.333; p = 0.02) and PRISMA and AMSTAR-2 (r = 0.555; p<0.01). Discrepancies in reporting were common between similar PRISMA-P and PRISMA items. CONCLUSION: Adherence to protocol reporting guidance was poor while manuscript reporting was comprehensive. Protocol completeness is not associated with a completely reported manuscript. Independently, PRISMA-P and PRISMA scores were weakly associated with higher quality assessments but insufficient as a surrogate for quality. Critical areas for quality improvement include protocol description, investigating causes of heterogeneity, and the impact of risk of bias on the evidence synthesis.

Diabetes Mellitus Tipo 2/tratamiento farmacológico , Informe de Investigación/normas , Revisiones Sistemáticas como Asunto/normas , Sesgo , Adhesión a Directriz , Humanos