The Current State of Health Inequities in COPD.

An understanding of the health inequities that surround the treatment and prevention of COPD is required to address the barriers that hinder improvement of care for underserved populations. This scoping review was conducted to identify the existing evidence of social factors that affect the health, health-care access, and health-care quality of patients with COPD within the United States, and to identify gaps in knowledge to help direct future research. We followed the guidelines from the Joanna Briggs Institute and Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta Analyses Extension for Scoping Reviews. In July 2022, a literature search by using Ovid (Embase) and MEDLINE (PubMed) databases was conducted to identify articles on COPD, published between 2016 and 2021, written in English, and that investigated at least one health inequity as defined by the National Institutes of Health. All studies were screened for inclusion criteria and were extracted in a masked, duplicate manner. Each health inequity was investigated, extracted, and summarized. Thirty articles were screened in full text, and 19 were found to meet inclusion criteria. Common social factors investigated in the COPD literature included race/ethnicity, income, and education. Since the implementation of the National Institutes of Health's sex and gender minority category in 2016, only one study within our sample examined LGBTQ+ (lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, queer [or sometimes questioning], and others) patients with COPD. The least commonly investigated social factors that affect patients with COPD were rural/under-resourced (geography), sex and gender, and LGBTQ+ affiliation. In addition, occupational status was not investigated by any included studies in our sample. Our scoping review underlines the lack of research with regard to inequities that affect patients with COPD. We propose researching hormone replacement therapy's impact on lung function in transgender and nonbinary patients with COPD. Implementation science studies are suggested to enhance intervention for COPD medication adherence among racial/ethnic minority groups, given the intersectionalities of social factors that disproportionately affect this population. We, also recommend developing telemedicine pulmonary rehabilitation technology for rurally located patients with COPD.

Inequities in Medically Assisted Reproduction: a Scoping Review.

Infertility has a high prevalence in the USA and health inequities play a large role in access to medically assisted reproduction (MAR). The aim of this study was to identify gaps in research pertaining to inequities in MAR and propose suggestions for future research directions. Searches were performed using MEDLINE and Ovid Embase. Articles that reported on MAR inequities, published between 2016 and 2021 in the USA, and written in English were included. The inequities investigated were adapted from the NIH-designated health disparities populations. Each article's inequity findings were extracted and reported, along with frequencies of inequities. Our sample included 66 studies. The majority of the studies investigated MAR outcomes by race/ethnicity and found that historically marginalized populations had poorer outcomes. LGBTQ + populations were less likely to use MAR or seek infertility care. Most studies found positive correlations with MAR use with income and education. The least commonly studied inequities in our sample were sex and/or gender and rural/under-resourced populations; findings showed that men and people from rural/under-resourced populations were less likely to access MAR. Studies that examined occupational status had varying findings. We suggest that future research be targeted toward: (1) standardizing and diversifying race/ethnicity reporting regarding MAR, (2) the use of community-based participatory research to increase data for LGBTQ + patients, and (3) increasing access to infertility care for men.

Trial Registry Searches in Plastic Surgery Systematic Reviews: A Meta-epidemiological Study.

INTRODUCTION: Clinical trial registry searches for unpublished clinical trial data are a means of mitigating publication bias within systematic reviews (SRs). The purpose of our study is to look at the rate of clinical trial registry searches conducted by SRs in the top five Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery journals. METHODS: We identified the top five plastic and reconstructive surgery journals using the Google h-5 index. We then searched Pubmed for SRs published in these journals and compared them to plastic surgery SRs published in the Cochrane Collaboration for SRs over the last 5 y. We included all SRs that were published within these top five journals and Cochrane between December 6, 2016 and December 6, 2021. We then conducted a secondary analysis on clinicaltrials.gov looking for unpublished clinical trials for 100 randomized SRs that did not conduct a clinical trial registry search. RESULTS: In SRs, 3.3% (17/512) from plastic surgery journals conducted trial registry searches. In comparison, 95.0% (38/40) of Cochrane Collaboration SRs conducted trial registry searches. Our secondary analysis found that 50% (50/100) of SRs could have included at least one unpublished clinical trial data set. CONCLUSIONS: We found that plastic surgery SRs rarely include searches for unpublished clinical trial data in clinical trial registries. To improve the data completeness of SRs in plastic surgery journals, we recommend journals alter their author guidelines to require a clinical trial registry search for unpublished literature.

Health Inequities in Orthopaedic Trauma Surgery in the United States: A Scoping Review.

BACKGROUND: Health inequities have been shown to have negative effects on patient care and the healthcare system. It is important for orthopaedic trauma surgeons and researchers to understand the extent to which patients are affected by these inequities. METHODS: We conducted a scoping review as outlined by the Joanna Briggs Institute and the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses extension for Scoping Reviews checklist. We searched PubMed and Ovid Embase for articles relating to orthopaedic trauma surgery and health inequities. RESULTS: After exclusion criteria were applied, our final sample consisted of 52 studies. The most frequently evaluated inequities were sex (43 of 52 [82.7]), race/ethnicity (23 of 52 [44.2]), and income status (17 of 52 [32.7]). The least frequently evaluated inequities were lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, and queer identity (0 of 52 [0.0]) and occupational status (8 of 52 [15.4]). Other inequities evaluated included rural/underresourced (11 of 52 [21.1]) and educational level (10 of 52 [19.2]). No trend was observed when examining inequities reported by year. CONCLUSION: Health inequities exist in orthopaedic trauma literature. Our study highlights multiple inequities in the field that need further investigation. Understanding current inequities and how to best mitigate them could improve patient care and outcomes in orthopaedic trauma surgery.

Health Inequities in Coronary Artery Bypass Grafting Literature: A Scoping Review.

Although life saving, health inequities exist regarding access and patient outcomes in Coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG), especially among marginalized groups. This scoping review's goal is to outline existing literature and highlight gaps for future research. Researchers followed guidance from the Joanna Briggs Institute and PRISMA extension for scoping reviews. We conducted a search to identify articles published between 2016 and 2022 regarding CABG and inequity groups, defined by the National Institutes of Health. Fifty-seven articles were included in our final sample. Race/Ethnicity was examined in 39 incidences, Sex or Gender 29 times, Income 17 instances, Geography 10 instances, and Education Level 3 instances. Occupation Status 2 instances, and LGBTQ+ 0 times. Important disparities exist regarding CABG access and outcomes, especially involving members of the LGBTQ+, Native American, and Black communities. Further research is needed to address health disparities and their root causes for focused action and improved health of minoritized groups.

Inequities and Research Gaps in Ophthalmology: A Scoping Review.

Importance: Deficient ophthalmologic care is costly to patients, making the identification of groups not receiving adequate care of vital importance. The current landscape of equity in ophthalmic care has yet to be thoroughly investigated and is important to ensure inclusivity and patient-centered care. Objective: To perform a scoping review of the literature pertaining to health care inequities in the field of ophthalmology. Evidence Review: A comprehensive database search using MEDLINE (via PubMed) and Ovid Embase was done in July 2022. English-language articles published from 2016 to 2021 were included and encompassed all article types except commentaries or correspondence. The search modeled the National Institutes of Health list of designated US health inequity populations, which includes income, education level, occupational status, rural and underresourced area, sex and gender, lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, and queer (LGBTQ) identity, and race and ethnicity. A total of 8170 abstracts and titles were screened by 2 independent investigators, and 189 studies were assessed in full text for eligibility. For inclusion, articles needed to be an ophthalmic study discussing health inequities. In a masked, duplicate fashion, 2 independent investigators screened 75 full-text studies for data extraction using a pilot-tested form. Data extraction included general publication characteristics and health inequity data based on the National Institutes of Health's defined inequity groups. Findings: A total of 75 publications were included. Notable inequities were found among Black and Hispanic patients associated with negative ophthalmic outcomes and mixed associations regarding sex or gender. Overall, lower-income patients were more likely to have vision impairment, use eye care services less, and have lower adherence to eye examinations. No articles within our sample examined LGBTQ inequities among ophthalmology patients since the 2016 National Institutes of Health classification of sexual and gender minority populations. Substantial research gaps were observed within the ophthalmic literature pertaining to the LGBTQ community, race and ethnicity, and rural and underresourced areas. Conclusions and Relevance: This scoping review found substantial findings associated with the LGBTQ community, race and ethnicity, and the role of telemedicine in rural and underresourced areas. Because of the importance of ophthalmic care in overall patient health, it is vital to understand the various inequities present and strive to improve the current gaps in the literature. Future studies should (1) examine barriers to clinical study and medical trainee recruitment as well as patient values and preference studies and (2) investigate the implementation of telemedicine in underresourced areas.

Reporting of patient-reported outcomes in trials on alcohol use disorder: a meta-epidemiological study.

OBJECTIVES: Currently, limited research exists to assess the extent of patient-reported outcome (PRO) reporting among randomised controlled trials (RCTs) evaluating alcohol use disorder (AUD). We sought to investigate the completeness of reporting of PROs using the Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials-PRO (CONSORT-PRO) extension in AUD RCTs. DESIGN SETTING: Meta-epidemiological study. METHODS: We searched MEDLINE, Embase and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) on 29 June 2021 for published RCTs focused on AUD. Following these searches, title and abstract screening, and full-text screening were performed by two investigators. To be included, a study must have employed a randomised trial design, published in English, focused on treatment of AUD and included at least one PRO. Trials meeting inclusion criteria were evaluated for completeness of reporting using the CONSORT-PRO extension adaptation. These trials were also evaluated for risk of bias (RoB) using the Cochrane RoB V.2.0 tool. Additionally, an exploratory analysis of each RCT's therapeutic area was extracted using the Mapi Research Trust's ePROVIDE platform. Screening and data collection were all performed in masked, duplicate fashion. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: PRO completeness of reporting, identification of factors associated with completeness of reporting and PRO measures used in RCTs to evaluate patients with AUD. RESULTS: Nineteen RCTs were evaluated in our analysis. Our primary outcome, the mean completion score for CONSORT-PRO, was 40.8%. Our secondary outcome-the identification of factors associated with completeness of reporting-found that trials published after 2014 (ie, 1 year after the publication of the CONSORT-PRO extension) were 15.0% more complete than trials published before 2014. We found no additional associations with better reporting. CONCLUSIONS: We found that the completeness of PRO reporting in RCTs involving AUD was deficient. Complete reporting of PROs is instrumental in understanding the effects of interventions, encourages patient participation in their treatment and may increase clinician confidence in the value of PROs. High quality treatment strategies for AUD require properly reported PROs.

Inadequate Reporting of Complications in Randomized Controlled Trials Cited as Supporting Evidence Underpinning AAOS CPG Recommendations for Hip and Knee Osteoarthritis: Application of the CONSORT Harms Checklist.

BACKGROUND: Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) have been shown to influence clinical decision-making and health policy. Therefore, it is essential that trial outcomes-including harms-are completely reported. METHODS: We included all RCTs cited as supporting evidence for the American Academy of Orthopaedic Surgeons Surgical Management of Osteoarthritis of the Knee, Osteoarthritis of the Knee, and Osteoarthritis of theHip Clinical Practice Guideline recommendations. Manuscripts were analyzed for compliance with the Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials (CONSORT) Extension for Harms items. We determined the Extension for Harms' influence on harms reporting by comparing RCTs published before and after the extension's release. RESULTS: One hundred and seventy-three RCTs were included, of which 81 (47%) adequately reported ≥50% of the checklist and 75 (43%) reported ≤33% of the checklist items. The mean number of checklist items reported was 8 items (of 18; 45%). Our interrupted time-series analysis suggests the implementation of the CONSORT Extension for Harms did not have a statistically significant effect on the completeness of harms reporting (P = .35; 95% Confidence interval = -0.0041 to 0.0014). CONCLUSION: Harms-related data are poorly reported within RCTs cited as supporting evidence for the American Academy of Orthopaedic Surgeons management for hip and knee OA Clinical Practice Guideline. Our time series analysis illustrates the failure of the CONSORT Extension for Harms on improving the reporting of harms-related data. Future efforts to improve the quality of harms reporting is crucial for patients, clinicians, and policy makers to perform thorough risk-benefit appraisals as RCT results directly influence clinical decision-making in orthopaedic surgery.

Evaluating Reporting Completeness of Patient-Reported Outcomes in Esophageal Motility Disorders: A Cross-Sectional Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials.

Esophageal motility disorders (EMD) can have significant effects on quality of life. Patient-reported outcomes (PROs) provide valuable insight into the patient's perspective on their treatment and are becoming increasingly used in randomized controlled trials (RCTs). Thus, our investigation aims to evaluate the completeness of reporting of PROs in RCTs pertaining to EMDs. We searched MEDLINE, Embase, and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials for published RCTs focused on EMDs. Included RCTs were published between 2006 and 2020, reported a primary outcome related to an EMDs, and listed at least one PRO measure as a primary or secondary outcome. Investigators screened and extracted data in a masked, duplicate fashion. Data extraction was carried out using both the CONSORT-PRO adaptation and Cochrane Collaboration Risk of Bias 2.0 tool. We assessed overall mean percent completion of the CONSORT-PRO adaptation and a bivariate regression analysis was used to assess relationships between trial characteristics and completeness of reporting. The overall mean percent completion of the CONSORT-PRO checklist adaptation was 43.86% (SD = 17.03). RCTs with a primary PRO had a mean completeness of 47.73% (SD = 17.32) and RCTs with a secondary PRO was 35.36% (SD = 13.52). RCTs with a conflict of interest statement were 18.15% (SE = 6.5) more complete (t = 2.79, P = .009) than trials lacking a statement. No additional significant associations between trial characteristics and completeness of reporting were found. PRO reporting completeness in RCTs focused on EMDs was inadequate. We urge EMD researchers to prioritize complete PRO reporting to foster patient-centered research for future RCTs on EMDs.

An analysis of the evidence underpinning the national comprehensive cancer network practice guidelines.

OBJECTIVE: This study assesses the quality and completeness of systematic reviews (SRs) included by the National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN) cancer screening clinical practice guidelines (CPGs). METHODS: We evaluated SRs according to PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses) and AMSTAR-2 (A Measurement Tool to Assess systematic Reviews). RESULTS: Seven NCCN CPGs were included with 109 SRs. The mean PRISMA percent completeness of included SRs was 71 % (range 0.1-1.0). The mean AMSTAR-2 percent completeness was 56 % (range 0.05-0.99). Of the 70 SRs assessed via AMSTAR-2, 42 (60 %) received a "critically low" rating, 11 (15.7 %) received "low" ratings, and 17 (24.3 %) received "moderate". None of the SRs received a "high" rating. CONCLUSION: Lack of adherence to AMSTAR-2 and PRISMA reporting standards among the SRs included is prevalent. We suggest improved reporting of SR inclusion criteria and evaluation to bolster the reporting quality of SRs underpinning CPG recommendations.