[Evaluation of the reporting quality of randomized controlled trials of acupuncture for depression based on CONSORT statement, STRICTA criteria and SHARE checklist].

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the reporting quality of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) of acupuncture for depression. METHODS: Systematic searches were performed in PubMed, the Cochrane Library, EMbase, CNKI, Wanfang, SinoMed and VIP Database for RCTs of acupuncture in treatment of depression. The search time was from the establishment of database to December 1, 2023, and the language restriction was Chinese and English. The reporting quality of RCTs of acupuncture for depression was evaluated using the CONSORT statement, the international standardization for trial reporting, STRICTA, the international standard for clinical trial interventions of acupuncture, and SHARE, the guideline and checklist for reporting sham acupuncture controls. RESULTS: According to the CONSORT statement items, the items with the reporting rate less than 50% was accounted for 54.05% of all of the items for Chinese articles, and there were 8 and 1 items with a reporting rate of 0% and 100%, respectively. For the English articles, the items with the reporting rate less than 50% was accounted for 35.14% of all of the items, and there were 3 and 7 items with a reporting rate of 0% and 100%, respectively. The reporting rate of 15 items in Chinese and English articles was greater than 50%, e.g. structured abstract, background and purpose. Based on STRICTA criteria, the reporting rate of either Chinese or English articles was relatively high. The items for Chinese articles with the reporting rate less than 50% was accounted for 23.53% of all of the items, and there were 1 and 4 items with a reporting rate of 0% and 100%, respectively. For English articles, the items with the reporting rate less than 50% was accounted for 11.76% of all of the items, and there was 1 item with a reporting rate of either 0% or 100%. In compliance with SHARE checklist, the reporting rate was low for either Chinese or English articles. The items with the reporting rate less than 50% was accounted for 57.89% of all of the items for Chinese articles, and there were 2 and 0 items with a reporting rate of 0% and 100%, respectively. For English articles, the items with the reporting rate less than 50% was accounted for 52.63% of all of the items, and there was 1 item with a reporting rate of 0% and 100%, respectively. CONCLUSION: The overall reporting quality of RCTs of acupuncture for depression is low currently. It is urgent to enhance the reporting of the details on sham acupuncture control especially. It is suggested that RCTs should be reported strictly in compliance with the CONSORT statement, STRICTA criteria, and SHARE checklist in the future.

A deeper consideration of sex/gender in quantitative health research: a checklist for incorporating multidimensionality, variety, embodiment, and intersectionality throughout the whole research process.

BACKGROUND: There is a growing awareness of the need to adequately integrate sex and gender into health-related research. Although it is widely known that the entangled dimensions sex/gender are not comprehensively considered in most studies to date, current publications of conceptual considerations and guidelines often only give recommendations for certain stages of the research process and - to the best of our knowledge - there is a lack of a detailed guidance that accompanies each step of the entire research process. The interdisciplinary project "Integrating gender into environmental health research" (INGER) aimed to fill this gap by developing a comprehensive checklist that encourages sex/gender transformative research at all stages of the research process of quantitative health research. In the long term this contributes to a more sex/gender-equitable research. METHODS: The checklist builds on current guidelines on sex/gender in health-related research. Starting from important key documents, publications from disciplines involved in INGER were collected. Furthermore, we used a snowball method to include further relevant titles. The identification of relevant publications was continued until saturation was reached. 55 relevant publications published between 2000 and 2021 were identified, assessed, summarised and included in the developed checklist. After noticing that most publications did not cover every step of the research process and often considered sex/gender in a binary way, the recommendations were modified and enriched based on the authors' expertise to cover every research step and to add further categories to the binary sex/gender categories. RESULTS: The checklist comprises 67 items in 15 sections for integrating sex/gender in quantitative health-related research and addresses aspects of the whole research process of planning, implementing and analysing quantitative health studies as well as aspects of appropriate language, communication of results to the scientific community and the public, and research team composition. CONCLUSION: The developed comprehensive checklist goes beyond a binary consideration of sex/gender and thus enables sex/gender-transformative research. Although the project INGER focused on environmental health research, no aspects that were specific to this research area were identified in the checklist. The resulting comprehensive checklist can therefore be used in different quantitative health-related research fields.

Silence is golden, but my measures still see-why cheaper-but-noisier outcome measures in large simple trials can be more cost-effective than gold standards.

OBJECTIVE: To assess the cost-effectiveness of using cheaper-but-noisier outcome measures, such as a short questionnaire, for large simple clinical trials. BACKGROUND: To detect associations reliably, trials must avoid bias and random error. To reduce random error, we can increase the size of the trial and increase the accuracy of the outcome measurement process. However, with fixed resources, there is a trade-off between the number of participants a trial can enrol and the amount of information that can be collected on each participant during data collection. METHODS: To consider the effect on measurement error of using outcome scales with varying numbers of categories, we define and calculate the variance from categorisation that would be expected from using a category midpoint; define the analytic conditions under which such a measure is cost-effective; use meta-regression to estimate the impact of participant burden, defined as questionnaire length, on response rates; and develop an interactive web-app to allow researchers to explore the cost-effectiveness of using such a measure under plausible assumptions. RESULTS: An outcome scale with only a few categories greatly reduced the variance of non-measurement. For example, a scale with five categories reduced the variance of non-measurement by 96% for a uniform distribution. We show that a simple measure will be more cost-effective than a gold-standard measure if the relative increase in variance due to using it is less than the relative increase in cost from the gold standard, assuming it does not introduce bias in the measurement. We found an inverse power law relationship between participant burden and response rates such that a doubling the burden on participants reduces the response rate by around one third. Finally, we created an interactive web-app ( https://benjiwoolf.shinyapps.io/cheapbutnoisymeasures/ ) to allow exploration of when using a cheap-but-noisy measure will be more cost-effective using realistic parameters. CONCLUSION: Cheaper-but-noisier questionnaires containing just a few questions can be a cost-effective way of maximising power. However, their use requires a judgement on the trade-off between the potential increase in risk of information bias and the reduction in the potential of selection bias due to the expected higher response rates.

Methodological quality of research on perioperative immunomodulatory supplementation in oncological gastrointestinal tract surgery: a meta-research protocol.

INTRODUCTION: One of the topics that show differences of opinion in the scientific field of nutrition is the recommendation by clinical practice guidelines (CPGs) of an immunomodulatory diet with arginine, nucleotides and omega-3 for individuals diagnosed with cancer undergoing major surgery. The quality of the recommendations is directly related to credibility, transparency and rigour in their development, but also to the quality of the studies published and available for inclusion in the recommendation, such as systematic reviews (SRs) and randomised clinical trials. The aim of this study is to evaluate the methodological quality of the recommendation of perioperative immunomodulatory supplementation for individuals with gastrointestinal and head and neck cancer, the CPGs, and the studies that support the recommendations. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: We will conduct a systematic search for CPGs. Recommendations for nutritional supplementation with immunomodulatory substrates for individuals undergoing major oncological surgery will be analysed using the Appraisal of Guidelines Research and Evaluation-Recommendations Excellence tool. CPGs will be analysed using the Appraisal of Guidelines Research and Evaluation II tool. The SRs cited in the recommendations will be analysed using the A Measurement Tool to Assess Systematic Reviews II tool and additional questions regarding heterogeneity in reviews. The clinical trials cited in the SRs and in the guideline recommendations (when applicable) will be analysed according to questions regarding heterogeneity in trials. The results will be presented in tables or charts using descriptive analyses. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: The results of this study will be disseminated through relevant conferences and peer-reviewed journals. PROTOCOL REGISTRATION NUMBER: 10.17605/OSF.IO/X2GYT.

Still to ARRIVE at adequate reporting of orthodontic studies involving animal models.

BACKGROUND: The ARRIVE 2.0 guidelines were introduced to improve the reporting of animal studies. The aim of this study was to assess the reporting adherence of orthodontic speciality animal studies in relation to ARRIVE 2.0 guidelines. Associations between the reporting and study characteristics were explored. MATERIALS AND METHOD: An electronic database search was undertaken using Medline via PubMed (www.pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov) to identify studies meeting the eligibility criteria published between 1 January 2018 and 31 December 2023. Data extraction was performed in duplicate and independently. Descriptive statistics and frequency distributions for the responses to each checklist item were calculated. Mean values for adequate reporting per ARRIVE item were calculated. A sum score was calculated by adding the responses (0 = not reported, 1 = inadequate reporting, 2 = adequate reporting) per item and sub-questions. On an exploratory basis, univariable linear regression between summary score and study characteristics (year of publication, continent of authorship, type of centre, and number of authors) was performed. RESULTS: Three hundred and eighty-four studies were analysed. Variability in the adequate reporting of the ARRIVE 2.0 guideline items was evident. In particular, in 32% of studies, there was a lack of reporting of the priori sample size calculation. Overall, the mean reporting score for the sample was 57.9 (SD 6.7 and range 34-74). There were no associations between score and study characteristics except for a weak association for year of publication with a small improvement over time (each additional year). CONCLUSIONS: The reporting of animal studies relevant to the speciality of orthodontics is sub-optimal in relation to the ARRIVE 2.0 guidelines. There was a tendency for the non-reporting of items pertaining to study sample size, eligibility, methods to reduce bias and interpretation/scientific implications. Greater awareness and reporting adherence to the ARRIVE 2.0 guidelines are required to reduce research waste involving animal models.

ChecKAP: A Checklist for Reporting a Knowledge, Attitude, and Practice (KAP) Study.

INTRODUCTION: The Knowledge, Attitudes, and Practices (KAP) model is a foundational tool in public health research. KAP surveys play a vital role in this process by gauging a population's current level of knowledge about a specific health issue. Rigorous evaluation is essential for ensuring the validity and reliability of KAP studies. Therefore, in this study, a comprehensive checklist for reporting Knowledge, Attitude, and Practices (KAP) Studies was developed. METHODOLOGY: This study was conducted using a systematic six-step roadmap. A comprehensive review of available relevant quality assessment tools led to the development of specific new items. An expert panel reviewed the initial draft, and after corrections were made, the second draft was finalized and subjected to psychometric analysis by experts. RESULTS: The development of ChecKAP (Checklist for Reporting Items for Knowledge, Attitude, and Practice) represents a significant contribution to KAP studies. The final tool consists of 46 items across 8 fields: title (1 item), abstract (6 items), keywords (1 item), introduction (6 items), method (11 items), findings (7 items), discussion (15 items), and conclusion (1 item). CONCLUSION: ChecKAP assesses the inherent complexity of KAP research methods and ensures consistent reporting. It fills an important gap in the KAP research literature and serves a dual purpose. First, it acts as a quality assessment tool for reviewers, enabling them to evaluate the methodological rigor and clarity of submitted manuscripts. Second, it serves as a guideline for authors, promoting a more systematic and transparent approach to reporting.

Guideline for reporting systematic reviews of outcome measurement instruments (OMIs): PRISMA-COSMIN for OMIs 2024.

PURPOSE: Although comprehensive and widespread guidelines on how to conduct systematic reviews of outcome measurement instruments (OMIs) exist, for example from the COSMIN (COnsensus-based Standards for the selection of health Measurement INstruments) initiative, key information is often missing in published reports. This article describes the development of an extension of the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) 2020 guideline: PRISMA-COSMIN for OMIs 2024. METHODS: The development process followed the Enhancing the QUAlity and Transparency Of health Research (EQUATOR) guidelines and included a literature search, expert consultations, a Delphi study, a hybrid workgroup meeting, pilot testing, and an end-of-project meeting, with integrated patient/public involvement. RESULTS: From the literature and expert consultation, 49 potentially relevant reporting items were identified. Round 1 of the Delphi study was completed by 103 panelists, whereas round 2 and 3 were completed by 78 panelists. After 3 rounds, agreement (≥ 67%) on inclusion and wording was reached for 44 items. Eleven items without consensus for inclusion and/or wording were discussed at a workgroup meeting attended by 24 participants. Agreement was reached for the inclusion and wording of 10 items, and the deletion of 1 item. Pilot testing with 65 authors of OMI systematic reviews further improved the guideline through minor changes in wording and structure, finalized during the end-of-project meeting. The final checklist to facilitate the reporting of full systematic review reports contains 54 (sub)items addressing the review's title, abstract, plain language summary, open science, introduction, methods, results, and discussion. Thirteen items pertaining to the title and abstract are also included in a separate abstract checklist, guiding authors in reporting for example conference abstracts. CONCLUSION: PRISMA-COSMIN for OMIs 2024 consists of two checklists (full reports; abstracts), their corresponding explanation and elaboration documents detailing the rationale and examples for each item, and a data flow diagram. PRISMA-COSMIN for OMIs 2024 can improve the reporting of systematic reviews of OMIs, fostering their reproducibility and allowing end-users to appraise the quality of OMIs and select the most appropriate OMI for a specific application. NOTE: In order to encourage its wide dissemination this article is freely accessible on the web sites of the journals: Health and Quality of Life Outcomes; Journal of Clinical Epidemiology; Journal of Patient-Reported Outcomes; Quality of Life Research.

The OHStat Guidelines for Reporting Observational Studies and Clinical Trials in Oral Health Research: explanation and elaboration.

Adequate and transparent reporting is necessary for critically appraising research. Yet, evidence suggests that the design, conduct, analysis, interpretation, and reporting of oral health research could be greatly improved. Accordingly, the Task Force on Design and Analysis in Oral Health Research-statisticians and trialists from academia and industry-empaneled a group of authors to develop methodological and statistical reporting guidelines identifying the minimum information needed to document and evaluate observational studies and clinical trials in oral health: the OHstat Guidelines. Drafts were circulated to the editors of 85 oral health journals and to Task Force members and sponsors and discussed at a December 2020 workshop attended by 49 researchers. The final version was subsequently approved by the Task Force in September 2021, submitted for journal review in 2022, and revised in 2023. The checklist consists of 48 guidelines: 5 for introductory information, 17 for methods, 13 for statistical analysis, 6 for results, and 7 for interpretation; 7 are specific to clinical trials. Each of these guidelines identifies relevant information, explains its importance, and often describes best practices. The checklist was published in multiple journals. The article was published simultaneously in JDR Clinical and Translational Research, the Journal of the American Dental Association, and the Journal of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery. Completed checklists should accompany manuscripts submitted for publication to these and other oral health journals to help authors, journal editors, and reviewers verify that the manuscript provides the information necessary to adequately document and evaluate the research.

The OHStat Guidelines for Reporting Observational Studies and Clinical Trials in Oral Health Research: manuscript checklist.

Adequate and transparent reporting is necessary for critically appraising published research. Yet, ample evidence suggests that the design, conduct, analysis, interpretation, and reporting of oral health research could be greatly improved. Accordingly, the Task Force on Design and Analysis in Oral Health Research-statisticians and trialists from academia and industry-identified the minimum information needed to report and evaluate observational studies and clinical trials in oral health: the OHStat Guidelines. Drafts were circulated to the editors of 85 oral health journals and to Task Force members and sponsors and discussed at a December 2020 workshop attended by 49 researchers. The guidelines were subsequently revised by the Task Force's writing group. The guidelines draw heavily from the Consolidated Standards for Reporting Trials (CONSORT), Strengthening the Reporting of Observational Studies in Epidemiology (STROBE), and CONSORT harms guidelines and incorporate the SAMPL guidelines for reporting statistics, the CLIP principles for documenting images, and the GRADE indicating the quality of evidence. The guidelines also recommend reporting estimates in clinically meaningful units using confidence intervals, rather than relying on P values. In addition, OHStat introduces 7 new guidelines that concern the text itself, such as checking the congruence between abstract and text, structuring the discussion, and listing conclusions to make them more specific. OHStat does not replace other reporting guidelines; it incorporates those most relevant to dental research into a single document. Manuscripts using the OHStat guidelines will provide more information specific to oral health research.

Precision cancer medicine platform trials: Concepts and design of AcSé-ESMART.

Precision cancer medicine brought the promise of improving outcomes for patients with cancer. High-throughput molecular profiling of tumors at treatment failure aims to direct a patient to a treatment matched to the tumor profile. In this way, improved outcome has been achieved in a small number of patients whose tumors exhibit unique targetable oncogenic drivers. Most cancers, however, contain multiple genetic alterations belonging to and of various hallmarks of cancer; for most of these alterations, there is limited knowledge on the level of evidence, their hierarchical roles in oncogenicity, and utility as biomarkers for response to targeted treatment(s). We developed a proof-of-concept trial that explores new treatment strategies in a molecularly-enriched tumor-agnostic, pediatric population. The evaluation of novel agents, including first-in-child molecules, alone or in combination, is guided by the available understanding of or hypotheses for the mechanisms of action of the diverse cancer events. Main objectives are: to determine 1) recommended phase 2 doses, 2) activity signals to provide the basis for disease specific development, and 3) to define new predictive biomarkers. Here we outline concepts, rationales and designs applied in the European AcSé-ESMART trial and highlight the feasibility but also complexity and challenges of such innovative platform trials.

Key insights and challeneges in noninferiority trials.

Noninferiority clinical trials are crucial for evaluating the effectiveness of new interventions compared to standard interventions. By establishing statistical and clinical comparability, these trials can be conducted to demonstrate that a new intervention is not significantly inferior to the standard intervention. However, selecting appropriate noninferiority margins and study designs are essential to ensuring valid and reliable results. Moreover, employing the Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials (CONSORT) statement for reporting noninferiority clinical trials enhances the quality and transparency of research findings. This article addresses key considerations and challenges faced by investigators in planning, conducting, and interpreting the results of noninferiority clinical trials.

Reporting guidelines for precision medicine research of clinical relevance: the BePRECISE checklist.

Precision medicine should aspire to reduce error and improve accuracy in medical and health recommendations by comparison with contemporary practice, while maintaining safety and cost-effectiveness. The etiology, clinical manifestation and prognosis of diseases such as obesity, diabetes, cardiovascular disease, kidney disease and fatty liver disease are heterogeneous. Without standardized reporting, this heterogeneity, combined with the diversity of research tools used in precision medicine studies, makes comparisons across studies and implementation of the findings challenging. Specific recommendations for reporting precision medicine research do not currently exist. The BePRECISE (Better Precision-data Reporting of Evidence from Clinical Intervention Studies & Epidemiology) consortium, comprising 23 experts in precision medicine, cardiometabolic diseases, statistics, editorial and lived experience, conducted a scoping review and participated in a modified Delphi and nominal group technique process to develop guidelines for reporting precision medicine research. The BePRECISE checklist comprises 23 items organized into 5 sections that align with typical sections of a scientific publication. A specific section about health equity serves to encourage precision medicine research to be inclusive of individuals and communities that are traditionally under-represented in clinical research and/or underserved by health systems. Adoption of BePRECISE by investigators, reviewers and editors will facilitate and accelerate equitable clinical implementation of precision medicine.

Involvement of patients in the research process.

Healthcare research emphasises involvement of patients in the research process, recognizing that this can enhance the relevance, quality, and implementation of research. This article highlights the need for more systematic planning to successfully involve patients in research projects and provides guidance on key aspects that researchers should consider in the planning of involving patients in research. The article accentuates the importance of establishing clear frameworks and guidelines to promote transparency and facilitate implementation.

Guideline for reporting systematic reviews of outcome measurement instruments (OMIs): PRISMA-COSMIN for OMIs 2024.

PURPOSE: Although comprehensive and widespread guidelines on how to conduct systematic reviews of outcome measurement instruments (OMIs) exist, for example from the COSMIN (COnsensus-based Standards for the selection of health Measurement INstruments) initiative, key information is often missing in published reports. This article describes the development of an extension of the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) 2020 guideline: PRISMA-COSMIN for OMIs 2024. METHODS: The development process followed the Enhancing the QUAlity and Transparency Of health Research (EQUATOR) guidelines and included a literature search, expert consultations, a Delphi study, a hybrid workgroup meeting, pilot testing, and an end-of-project meeting, with integrated patient/public involvement. RESULTS: From the literature and expert consultation, 49 potentially relevant reporting items were identified. Round 1 of the Delphi study was completed by 103 panelists, whereas round 2 and 3 were completed by 78 panelists. After 3 rounds, agreement (≥67%) on inclusion and wording was reached for 44 items. Eleven items without consensus for inclusion and/or wording were discussed at a workgroup meeting attended by 24 participants. Agreement was reached for the inclusion and wording of 10 items, and the deletion of 1 item. Pilot testing with 65 authors of OMI systematic reviews further improved the guideline through minor changes in wording and structure, finalized during the end-of-project meeting. The final checklist to facilitate the reporting of full systematic review reports contains 54 (sub)items addressing the review's title, abstract, plain language summary, open science, introduction, methods, results, and discussion. Thirteen items pertaining to the title and abstract are also included in a separate abstract checklist, guiding authors in reporting for example conference abstracts. CONCLUSION: PRISMA-COSMIN for OMIs 2024 consists of two checklists (full reports; abstracts), their corresponding explanation and elaboration documents detailing the rationale and examples for each item, and a data flow diagram. PRISMA-COSMIN for OMIs 2024 can improve the reporting of systematic reviews of OMIs, fostering their reproducibility and allowing end-users to appraise the quality of OMIs and select the most appropriate OMI for a specific application. NOTE: In order to encourage its wide dissemination this article is freely accessible on the web sites of the journals: Health and Quality of Life Outcomes; Journal of Clinical Epidemiology; Journal of Patient-Reported Outcomes; Quality of Life Research.

Guideline for reporting systematic reviews of outcome measurement instruments (OMIs): PRISMA-COSMIN for OMIs 2024.

PURPOSE: Although comprehensive and widespread guidelines on how to conduct systematic reviews of outcome measurement instruments (OMIs) exist, for example from the COSMIN (COnsensus-based Standards for the selection of health Measurement INstruments) initiative, key information is often missing in published reports. This article describes the development of an extension of the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) 2020 guideline: PRISMA-COSMIN for OMIs 2024. METHODS: The development process followed the Enhancing the QUAlity and Transparency Of health Research (EQUATOR) guidelines and included a literature search, expert consultations, a Delphi study, a hybrid workgroup meeting, pilot testing, and an end-of-project meeting, with integrated patient/public involvement. RESULTS: From the literature and expert consultation, 49 potentially relevant reporting items were identified. Round 1 of the Delphi study was completed by 103 panelists, whereas round 2 and 3 were completed by 78 panelists. After 3 rounds, agreement (≥ 67%) on inclusion and wording was reached for 44 items. Eleven items without consensus for inclusion and/or wording were discussed at a workgroup meeting attended by 24 participants. Agreement was reached for the inclusion and wording of 10 items, and the deletion of 1 item. Pilot testing with 65 authors of OMI systematic reviews further improved the guideline through minor changes in wording and structure, finalized during the end-of-project meeting. The final checklist to facilitate the reporting of full systematic review reports contains 54 (sub)items addressing the review's title, abstract, plain language summary, open science, introduction, methods, results, and discussion. Thirteen items pertaining to the title and abstract are also included in a separate abstract checklist, guiding authors in reporting for example conference abstracts. CONCLUSION: PRISMA-COSMIN for OMIs 2024 consists of two checklists (full reports; abstracts), their corresponding explanation and elaboration documents detailing the rationale and examples for each item, and a data flow diagram. PRISMA-COSMIN for OMIs 2024 can improve the reporting of systematic reviews of OMIs, fostering their reproducibility and allowing end-users to appraise the quality of OMIs and select the most appropriate OMI for a specific application. NOTE: In order to encourage its wide dissemination this article is freely accessible on the web sites of the journals: Health and Quality of Life Outcomes; Journal of Clinical Epidemiology; Journal of Patient-Reported Outcomes; Quality of Life Research.