Interrater reliability of the violence risk assessment checklist for youth: a case vignette study.

BACKGROUND: Facilities providing health- and social services for youth are commonly faced with the need for assessment and management of violent behavior. These providers often experience shortage of resources, compromising the feasibility of conducting comprehensive violence risk assessments. The Violence Risk Assessment Checklist for Youth aged 12-18 (V-RISK-Y) is a 12-item violence risk screening instrument developed to rapidly identify youth at high risk for violent behavior in situations requiring expedient evaluation of violence risk. The V-RISK-Y instrument was piloted in acute psychiatric units for youth, yielding positive results of predictive validity. The aim of the present study was to assess the interrater reliability of V-RISK-Y in child and adolescent psychiatric units and acute child protective services institutions. METHODS: A case vignette study design was utilized to assess interrater reliability of V-RISK-Y. Staff at youth facilities (N = 163) in Norway and Sweden scored V-RISK-Y for three vignettes, and interrater reliability was assessed with the intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC). RESULTS: Results indicate good interrater reliability for the sum score and Low-Moderate-High risk level appraisal across staff from the different facilities and professions. For single items, interrater reliability ranged from poor to excellent. CONCLUSIONS: This study is an important step in establishing the psychometric properties of V-RISK-Y. Findings support the structured professional judgment tradition the instrument is based on, with high agreement on the overall risk assessment. This study had a case vignette design, and the next step is to assess the reliability and validity of V-RISK-Y in naturalistic settings.

Development and evaluation of a customized checklist to assess the quality control of disease registry systems of Tehran, the capital of Iran in 2021.

BACKGROUND: Clinical registries facilitate medical research by providing 'real data'. In the past decade, an increasing number of disease registry systems (DRS) have been initiated in Iran. Here, we assessed the quality control (QC) of the data recorded in the DRS established by Shahid Beheshti University of Medical Sciences in Tehran, the capital city of Iran, in 2021. METHODS: The present study was conducted in two consecutive qualitative and quantitative phases and employed a mixed-method design. A checklist containing 23 questions was developed based on a consensus reached following several panel group discussions, whose face content and construct validities were confirmed. Cronbach's alpha was calculated to verify the tool's internal consistency. Overall, the QC of 49 DRS was assessed in six dimensions, including completeness, timeliness, accessibility, validity, comparability, and interpretability. The seventy percent of the mean score was considered a cut-point for desirable domains. RESULTS: The total content validity index (CVI) was obtained as 0.79, which is a reasonable level. Cronbach's alpha coefficients obtained showed acceptable internal consistency for all of the six QC domains. The data recorded in the registries included different aspects of diagnosis/treatment (81.6%) and treatment quality requirements outcomes (12.2%). According to the acceptable quality cut-point, out of 49 evaluated registries, 48(98%), 46(94%), 41(84%), and 38(77.5%), fulfilled desirable quality scores in terms of interpretability, accessibility, completeness, and comparability, however, 36(73.5%) and 32(65.3%) of registries obtained the quality requirement for timeliness and validity, respectively. CONCLUSION: The checklist developed here, containing customized questions to assess six QC domains of DRSs, provided a valid and reliable tool that could be considered as a proof-of-concept for future investigations. The clinical data available in the studied DRSs fulfilled desirable levels in terms of interpretability, accessibility, comparability, and completeness; however, timeliness and validity of these registries needed to be improved.

Guidelines for Reporting Outcomes in Trial Reports: The CONSORT-Outcomes 2022 Extension.

Importance: Clinicians, patients, and policy makers rely on published results from clinical trials to help make evidence-informed decisions. To critically evaluate and use trial results, readers require complete and transparent information regarding what was planned, done, and found. Specific and harmonized guidance as to what outcome-specific information should be reported in publications of clinical trials is needed to reduce deficient reporting practices that obscure issues with outcome selection, assessment, and analysis. Objective: To develop harmonized, evidence- and consensus-based standards for reporting outcomes in clinical trial reports through integration with the Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials (CONSORT) 2010 statement. Evidence Review: Using the Enhancing the Quality and Transparency of Health Research (EQUATOR) methodological framework, the CONSORT-Outcomes 2022 extension of the CONSORT 2010 statement was developed by (1) generation and evaluation of candidate outcome reporting items via consultation with experts and a scoping review of existing guidance for reporting trial outcomes (published within the 10 years prior to March 19, 2018) identified through expert solicitation, electronic database searches of MEDLINE and the Cochrane Methodology Register, gray literature searches, and reference list searches; (2) a 3-round international Delphi voting process (November 2018-February 2019) completed by 124 panelists from 22 countries to rate and identify additional items; and (3) an in-person consensus meeting (April 9-10, 2019) attended by 25 panelists to identify essential items for the reporting of outcomes in clinical trial reports. Findings: The scoping review and consultation with experts identified 128 recommendations relevant to reporting outcomes in trial reports, the majority (83%) of which were not included in the CONSORT 2010 statement. All recommendations were consolidated into 64 items for Delphi voting; after the Delphi survey process, 30 items met criteria for further evaluation at the consensus meeting and possible inclusion in the CONSORT-Outcomes 2022 extension. The discussions during and after the consensus meeting yielded 17 items that elaborate on the CONSORT 2010 statement checklist items and are related to completely defining and justifying the trial outcomes, including how and when they were assessed (CONSORT 2010 statement checklist item 6a), defining and justifying the target difference between treatment groups during sample size calculations (CONSORT 2010 statement checklist item 7a), describing the statistical methods used to compare groups for the primary and secondary outcomes (CONSORT 2010 statement checklist item 12a), and describing the prespecified analyses and any outcome analyses not prespecified (CONSORT 2010 statement checklist item 18). Conclusions and Relevance: This CONSORT-Outcomes 2022 extension of the CONSORT 2010 statement provides 17 outcome-specific items that should be addressed in all published clinical trial reports and may help increase trial utility, replicability, and transparency and may minimize the risk of selective nonreporting of trial results.

The surgical debrief: Just another checklist or an instrument to drive cultural change?

INTRODUCTION: Post-procedural debrief is recommended to improve patient safety. We examined operating room (OR) clinicians' perceptions of the impact of a multi-disciplinary debrief on OR culture. METHODS: A survey was administered to 182 OR clinicians at a major academic medical center. Attitudes toward the surgical debrief and its effect on patient safety and OR culture were evaluated. RESULTS: Majority of clinicians (58.2%) believed creating a culture of safety in the OR was a shared care team responsibility, however, surgical attendings and trainees were more likely to assign this responsibility to the surgical attending. Few circulating nurses and trainees felt comfortable initiating a surgical debrief. Overall clinicians agreed that a debrief would impact both patient safety outcomes and OR culture. CONCLUSIONS: Clinicians felt implementation of a surgical debrief would positively affect the OR culture of safety by improving interdisciplinary communication and influencing the power hierarchy that exists in many ORs.

Convergent validity of the developmental coordination disorder checklist using soft neurological signs.

AIMS: To investigate the convergent validity of a new questionnaire, the Developmental Coordination Disorder Checklist (DCDC), we examined the relationship between the DCDC score and Soft Neurological Signs (SNS) which highly correlated with the Movement Assessment Battery for Children (MABC), which is widely applied to assess fine and gross motor skills. METHODS: The patients were 70 elementary school children without intellectual disabilities who were referred to our clinic, examined for SNS, and whose parents completed the DCDC. The DCDC consists of 16 items that focus on three factors: fine motor, gross motor, and catch and throw. We used a previously described method to assess SNS, which included five tasks: (1) standing on one leg with closed eyes, (2) finger opposition test, (3) diadochokinesis, (4) associated movements during diadochokinesis, and (5) motor persistence (laterally fixed gaze). RESULTS: DCDC scores and SNS were strongly and positively correlated, with higher DCDC scores (indicating greater coordination problems) associated with a higher number of positive SNS. CONCLUSIONS: DCDC scores have been proven to be strongly correlated with SNS, and these data suggest that DCDC has good convergent validity.

Validity and reliability of a checklist for patients with Behçet's disease based on the International Classification of Functioning, Disability and Health.

In 2020, we reported the "BD-checklist 92" for patients with Behçet's disease (BD) based on the International Classification of Functioning, Disability and Health. The purpose of the present study was to evaluate the validity and reliability of this checklist. Questionnaires using the "BD-checklist 92" and the 36-item Short Form Survey (SF-36) were sent to ten affiliated institutions. In total, 174 patients answered the questionnaire (response rate, 32.7%). Criterion validity was evaluated using the correlation coefficient between the number of problem categories extracted from the "BD-checklist 92" and the scores of the eight subscales and two components of the SF-36. Construct validity was assessed based on the number of problem categories extracted as an external criterion for the number of manifestations experienced and specific lesions. The comparison was performed using the Mann-Whitney U test. Cronbach's alpha coefficient was used to evaluate reliability. The number of problem categories in the "Body functions and structures", "Activities and participation", and "Environmental factors" components correlated significantly with all dimensions of the SF-36 questionnaire (P < 0.05 each). Construct validity showed that the number of manifestations experienced in all components (P < 0.001 each) and specific lesions in "Body functions and structures" and "All categories" (P = 0.002 and 0.050, respectively) contributed to an increased number of problems associated with BD. Cronbach's alpha coefficient for the "BD-checklist 92" was 0.926. This study confirmed the validity and reliability of the "BD-checklist 92".

Recommended reporting items for epidemic forecasting and prediction research: The EPIFORGE 2020 guidelines.

BACKGROUND: The importance of infectious disease epidemic forecasting and prediction research is underscored by decades of communicable disease outbreaks, including COVID-19. Unlike other fields of medical research, such as clinical trials and systematic reviews, no reporting guidelines exist for reporting epidemic forecasting and prediction research despite their utility. We therefore developed the EPIFORGE checklist, a guideline for standardized reporting of epidemic forecasting research. METHODS AND FINDINGS: We developed this checklist using a best-practice process for development of reporting guidelines, involving a Delphi process and broad consultation with an international panel of infectious disease modelers and model end users. The objectives of these guidelines are to improve the consistency, reproducibility, comparability, and quality of epidemic forecasting reporting. The guidelines are not designed to advise scientists on how to perform epidemic forecasting and prediction research, but rather to serve as a standard for reporting critical methodological details of such studies. CONCLUSIONS: These guidelines have been submitted to the EQUATOR network, in addition to hosting by other dedicated webpages to facilitate feedback and journal endorsement.

Concordancia entre observadores en la aplicación de la lista de verificación para la administración segura de la nutrición enteral / Interobserver agreement in using a checklist for the safe administration of enteral nutrition

Objetivo: describir una evaluación de la concordancia entre observadores en el uso de una lista de verificación en la atención a pacientes con sonda nasoenteral (SNE) como premisa de la recogida de datos. Método: este estudio de fiabilidad se realizó en 2018 en un hospital brasileño, antes de la recogida de datos para un ensayo clínico abierto. Ocho observadores independientes, previamente capacitados y “cegados” con respecto a las evaluaciones de los demás, evaluaron a pacientes con SNE por medio de una lista de comprobación de 25 elementos. Los datos obtenidos por estos asistentes de investigación (AI) se compararon con los obtenidos por una enfermera experimentada. Se midió la concordancia mediante los coeficientes kappa y PABAK. Resultados: se realizaron 451 observaciones por pares. Considerando la totalidad de los elementos, hubo una concordancia casi perfecta (k > 0,80) en todos los pares de observación (enfermera vs. cada AI): AI 1 (k = 0,91; IC 95 % = 0,89-0,93); AI 2 (k = 0,83; IC 95 % = 0,80-0,85); AI 3 (k = 0,92; IC 95 % = 0,90-0,94 ); AI 4 (k = 0,83; IC 95 % = 0,80-0,86); AI 5 (k = 0,94; IC 95 % = 0,92-0,96); AI 6 (k = 0,94; IC 95 % = 0,92-0,96); AI 7 (k = 0,96; IC 95 % = 0,95-0,98); AI 8 (k = 0,73; IC 95 % = 0,70-0,77). Se identificó un menor número de concordancia en los elementos individuales y en determinados AI. La recapacitación y supervisión de los AI mejoró su desempeño y la concordancia entre observadores. Conclusión: la evaluación de la concordancia entre observadores resultó fundamental para asegurar la fiabilidad de la recogida de datos y, por consiguiente, evitar sesgos de medición en los estudios clínicos de enfermería. (AU)

Objective: to describe an evaluation of interobserver agreement in the use of a checklist related to the use of nasoenteral tube (NSS) as a presupposition for quality in obtaining data. Method: a methodological study conducted in 2018 in a Brazilian hospital, preceding the data collection of an open-label clinical trial. Independent observers, blinded to the evaluation of their peers, evaluated patients with NSS through a 25-item checklist. The data collected by eight previously trained research assistants (RA) were compared to those obtained by an experienced nurse (reference standard). Agreement was measured using the kappa coefficient and PABAK. Results: a total of 451 observations were made in pairs. Considering the total items on the checklist there was almost perfect agreement (k > 0.80) in all observation pairs (nurse vs. each RA): RA 1 (k = 0.91; 95 % CI = 0.89-0.93); RA 2 (k = 0.83; 95 % CI = 0.80-0.85); RA 3 (k = 0.92; 95 % CI = 0.90-0.94); RA 4 (k = 0.83; 95 % CI = 0.80-0.86); RA 5 (k = 0.94; 95 % CI = 0.92-0.96); RA 6 (k = 0.94; 95 % CI = 0.92-0.96); RA 7 (k = 0.96; 95 % CI = 0.95-0.98); RA 8 (k = 0.73; 95 % CI = 0.70-0.77). However, for isolated items, and in specific RAs, there were fair agreements, unacceptable to effectively collect data from a clinical trial. Retraining and supervision of RAs were able to improve agreement between observers. Conclusion: an evaluation of interobserver agreement proved to be fundamental to ensure the reliability of data collection and, therefore, to avoid measurement biases. (AU)

Impact of the WHO Surgical Safety Checklist Relative to Its Design and Intended Use: A Systematic Review and Meta-Meta-Analysis.

BACKGROUND: The aim of this study was to identify what parts of the World Health Organization Surgical Safety Checklist (WHO SSC) are working, what can be done to make it more effective, and to determine if it achieved its intended effect relative to its design and intended use. STUDY DESIGN: We conducted a qualitative thematic analysis and meta-meta-analyses of findings in WHO SSC systematic reviews following Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analysis (PRISMA) guidelines. RESULTS: Twenty systematic reviews were included for qualitative thematic analysis. Narrative information was coded in 4 primary areas with a focus on impact of the WHO SSC. Four themes-Clinical Outcomes, Process Measures, Team Dynamics and Communication, and Safety Culture-pertained directly to the aims or purposes behind the development of the SSC. The other 2 themes-Efficiency and Workload involved in using the checklist and Checklist Impact on Institutional Practices-are associated with SSC use, but were not focal areas considered during its development. Included in the 20 systematic reviews were 24 unique observational cohort studies that reported pre-post data on a total of 18 clinical outcomes. Mortality, morbidity, surgical site infection, pneumonia, unplanned return to the operating room, urinary tract infection, blood loss requiring transfusion, unplanned intubation, and sepsis favored the use of the WHO SSC. Deep vein thrombosis was the only postoperative outcome assessed that did not favor use of the WHO SSC. CONCLUSIONS: The WHO SSC positively impacts the things it was explicitly designed to address and does not positively impact things it was not explicitly designed for.

Best Practices Using Ex Vivo Animal Brain Models in Neurosurgical Education to Assess Surgical Expertise.

BACKGROUND: Ex vivo animal brain simulation models are being increasingly used for neurosurgical training because these models can replicate human brain conditions. The goal of the present report is to provide the neurosurgical community interested in using ex vivo animal brain simulation models with guidelines for comprehensively and rigorously conducting, documenting, and assessing this type of research. METHODS: In consultation with an interdisciplinary group of physicians and researchers involved in ex vivo models and a review of the literature on the best practices guidelines for simulation research, we developed the "ex vivo brain model to assess surgical expertise" (EVBMASE) checklist. The EVBMASE checklist provides a comprehensive quantitative framework for analyzing and reporting studies involving these models. We applied The EVBMASE checklist to the studies reported of ex vivo animal brain models to document how current ex vivo brain simulation models are used to train surgical expertise. RESULTS: The EVBMASE checklist includes defined subsections and a total score of 20, which can help investigators improve studies and provide readers with techniques to better assess the quality and any deficiencies of the research. We classified 18 published ex vivo brain models into modified (group 1) and nonmodified (group 2) models. The mean total EVBMASE score was 11 (55%) for group 1 and 4.8 (24.2%) for group 2, a statistically significant difference (P = 0.006) mainly attributed to differences in the simulation study design section (P = 0.003). CONCLUSIONS: The present findings should help contribute to more rigorous application, documentation, and assessment of ex vivo brain simulation research.

Modification of oxytocin use through a coaching-based intervention based on the WHO Safe Childbirth Checklist in Uttar Pradesh, India: a secondary analysis of a cluster randomised controlled trial.

OBJECTIVE: To understand the prevalence of intrapartum oxytocin use, assess associated perinatal and maternal outcomes, and evaluate the impact of a WHO Safe Childbirth Checklist intervention on oxytocin use at primary-level facilities in Uttar Pradesh, India. DESIGN: Secondary analysis of a cluster-randomised controlled trial. SETTING: Thirty Primary and Community public health facilities in Uttar Pradesh, India from 2014 to 2017. POPULATION: Women admitted to a study facility for childbirth at baseline, 2, 6 or 12 months after intervention initiation. METHODS: The BetterBirth intervention aimed to increase adherence to the WHO Safe Childbirth Checklist. We used Rao-Scott Chi-square tests to compare (1) timing of oxytocin use between study arms and (2) perinatal mortality and resuscitation of infants whose mothers received intrapartum oxytocin versus who did not. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Intrapartum and postpartum oxytocin administration, perinatal mortality, use of neonatal bag and mask. RESULTS: We observed 5484 deliveries. At baseline, intrapartum oxytocin was administered to 78.2% of women. Two months after intervention initiation, intrapartum oxytocin (I) was administered to 32.1% of women compared with 70.6% in the control (C) (P < 0.01); this difference diminished after the end of the intervention (I = 48.2%, C = 74.7%, P = 0.03). Partograph use remained at <1% at all facilities. Resuscitation was performed on 7.5% of infants whose mother received intrapartum oxytocin versus 2.0% who did not (P < 0.0001). CONCLUSIONS: In this setting, intrapartum oxytocin use was high despite limited maternal/fetal monitoring or caesarean capability, and was associated with increased neonatal resuscitation. The BetterBirth intervention was successful at decreasing intrapartum oxytocin use. Ongoing support is needed to sustain these practices. TWEETABLE ABSTRACT: Coaching + WHO Safe Childbirth Checklist reduces intrapartum oxytocin use and need for newborn resuscitation.

[Interobserver agreement in using a checklist for the safe administration of enteral nutrition]. / Concordancia entre observadores en la aplicación de la lista de verificación para la administración segura de la nutrición enteral.

INTRODUCTION: Objective: to describe an evaluation of interobserver agreement in the use of a checklist related to the use of nasoenteral tube (NSS) as a presupposition for quality in obtaining data. Method: a methodological study conducted in 2018 in a Brazilian hospital, preceding the data collection of an open-label clinical trial. Independent observers, blinded to the evaluation of their peers, evaluated patients with NSS through a 25-item checklist. The data collected by eight previously trained research assistants (RA) were compared to those obtained by an experienced nurse (reference standard). Agreement was measured using the kappa coefficient and PABAK. Results: a total of 451 observations were made in pairs. Considering the total items on the checklist there was almost perfect agreement (k > 0.80) in all observation pairs (nurse vs. each RA): RA 1 (k = 0.91; 95 % CI = 0.89-0.93); RA 2 (k = 0.83; 95 % CI = 0.80-0.85); RA 3 (k = 0.92; 95 % CI = 0.90-0.94); RA 4 (k = 0.83; 95 % CI = 0.80-0.86); RA 5 (k = 0.94; 95 % CI = 0.92-0.96); RA 6 (k = 0.94; 95 % CI = 0.92-0.96); RA 7 (k = 0.96; 95 % CI = 0.95-0.98); RA 8 (k = 0.73; 95 % CI = 0.70-0.77). However, for isolated items, and in specific RAs, there were fair agreements, unacceptable to effectively collect data from a clinical trial. Retraining and supervision of RAs were able to improve agreement between observers. Conclusion: an evaluation of interobserver agreement proved to be fundamental to ensure the reliability of data collection and, therefore, to avoid measurement biases.

INTRODUCCIÓN: Objetivo: describir una evaluación de la concordancia entre observadores en el uso de una lista de verificación en la atención a pacientes con sonda nasoenteral (SNE) como premisa de la recogida de datos. Método: este estudio de fiabilidad se realizó en 2018 en un hospital brasileño, antes de la recogida de datos para un ensayo clínico abierto. Ocho observadores independientes, previamente capacitados y "cegados" con respecto a las evaluaciones de los demás, evaluaron a pacientes con SNE por medio de una lista de comprobación de 25 elementos. Los datos obtenidos por estos asistentes de investigación (AI) se compararon con los obtenidos por una enfermera experimentada. Se midió la concordancia mediante los coeficientes kappa y PABAK. Resultados: se realizaron 451 observaciones por pares. Considerando la totalidad de los elementos, hubo una concordancia casi perfecta (k > 0,80) en todos los pares de observación (enfermera vs. cada AI): AI 1 (k = 0,91; IC95 % = 0,89-0,93); AI 2 (k = 0,83; IC95 % = 0,80-0,85); AI 3 (k = 0,92; IC95 %= 0,90-0,94 ); AI 4 (k = 0,83; IC95 % = 0,80-0,86); AI 5 (k = 0,94; IC95 % = 0,92-0,96); AI 6 (k = 0,94; IC95 % = 0,92-0,96); AI 7 (k = 0,96; IC95 % = 0,95-0,98); AI 8 (k = 0,73; IC95 % = 0,70-0,77). Se identificó un menor número de concordancia en los elementos individuales y en determinados AI. La recapacitación y supervisión de los AI mejoró su desempeño y la concordancia entre observadores. Conclusión: la evaluación de la concordancia entre observadores resultó fundamental para asegurar la fiabilidad de la recogida de datos y, por consiguiente, evitar sesgos de medición en los estudios clínicos de enfermería.

Verifying intervention fidelity procedures for a palliative home care intervention with pilot study results.

Fidelity (consistency of intervention implementation) is essential to rigorous research. Intervention fidelity maintains study internal validity, intervention reproducibility, and transparency in the research conduct. The purpose of this manuscript is to describe intervention fidelity strategies/procedures developed for a pilot study testing a new palliative care nursing intervention (FamPALcare) for families managing advanced lung disease. The procedures described herein are based on the fidelity best practices recommendations from the NIH Consortium. An evidence-based checklist guided observational ratings of the fidelity procedures used and the intervention content implemented in each intervention session. Descriptive data on how participants understood (received), enacted, or used the intervention information were summarized. The fidelity checklist observational scores found ≥93% of the planned intervention content was implemented, and the fidelity strategies were adhered to consistently during each intervention session. The small variation (7%) in implementation was expected and related to participants' varying experiences, input, and/or questions. The helpfulness scale items include participants' ability to use home care resources, to anticipate and manage end-of-life symptoms, and to use Advance Directive forms. The high ratings (M = 4.4) on the 1-5 (very helpful) Likert Helpfulness Scale verified participants utilized the information from the intervention. Furthermore, there was an improvement in patients' breathlessness scores and completion of Advance Directive forms at 3 months after baseline. It is essential to plan intervention fidelity strategies to use throughout a study and to report fidelity results.

Compliance With Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis Individual Participant Data Statement for Meta-Analyses Published for Stroke Studies.

Background and Purpose: Individual-participant data meta-analyses (IPD-MA) are powerful evidence synthesis studies which are considered the gold-standard of MA. The quality of reporting in these studies is guided by the 2015 Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Individual Participant Data (PRISMA-IPD) guidelines. The growing number of IPD-MA published for stroke studies calls for an assessment of the compliance of these studies with the PRISMA-IPD statement. Methods: PubMed and EMBASE were searched for MA in stroke published between January 1, 2016, and March 30, 2020, in journals with impact factor >2. Literature reviews, scoping reviews, and aggregate MA were excluded. The final articles were scored using the 31-item PRISMA-IPD checklist. Results were depicted using descriptive statistics. Compliance with each item in PRISM-IPD guideline was recorded. The study was defined as compliant to IPD analyses if it satisfied all IPD specific items. Results: From an initial set of 321 articles, 31 met the final eligibility for data extraction. Only 4 (13%) described the use of PRISMA-IPD guidelines in their methodology, while 8/31 (26%) used the old PRISMA guidelines and 19/31 (61%) followed none. Regardless of mention of using IPD specific guidelines, 42% (n=13) of studies were compliant with all 4 IPD specific domains. The poorest areas of compliance were bias assessment within (32%) and across (39%) studies, reporting protocol and registration (42%), and reporting of IPD integrity (48%). The median journal impact factor was similar between the compliant (median, 8.1 [interquartile range, 5.4­39.9]) and noncompliant (median, 6 [interquartile range, 4.5­16.2]) groups (P=0.24). Similarly, the journal, country of correspondence, number of authors, number of studies included in MA, study sample size, and funding source were statistically similar between the groups. Conclusions: For the published IPD-MA stroke studies, the compliance with PRISMA-IPD statement and compliance with 4 IPD specific items was suboptimal. The journal, author, and study-related factors were not associated with compliance. Additional scrutiny measures to ensure adherence to mandated guidelines might increase the compliance. Several avenues to improve compliance and ensure optimal adherence are discussed.

Checklist for follow-up of adolescents with chronic illness. A monitoring tool to help prepare the transition from pediatric to adult care.

Adolescence can be a particularly challenging period for individuals with a chronic illness. To help the specialized healthcare teams, an expert panel drafted a checklist of topics to be addressed throughout adolescence that are often not covered in subspecialty clinic visits such as peers, coping, adherence, understanding of illness, sexuality, etc., since these topics apply to youth with special healthcare needs. Each member of the specialized team can discuss one of the themes according to their role with the adolescent as a doctor, educator, nurse, dietician, etc. The coherence of the team enables a comprehensive approach and will facilitate the transition to adult medical care.

"Evidence-based checklists" for identifying predatory journals have not been assessed for reliability or validity: An analysis and proposal for moving forward.

BACKGROUND: Predatory journals (PJs) pose a threat to the quality/integrity of scientific publishing. Checklists have been proposed to identify PJs, but few are "evidence-based". This study's objective was to search for/assess evidence-based checklists (EBCs) for reliability and validity, based on a new consensus definition of PJs. METHODS: A published methods guideline for scale development was used to identify how many steps were completed in the generation of identified EBCs. Items from each EBC were compared against the consensus definition, and a list of items to be considered in the creation of a composite EBC to identify PJs was generated. RESULTS: Four EBCs were identified. None of these had completed the first of the nine steps for scale development and validation. Forty-seven items from the four EBCs were assessed against the consensus definition, of which 28 items fell within the definition. A proposed composite EBC was created from items matching components of the consensus definition. CONCLUSION: EBCs to detect PJs lack assessment of reliability and validity. To a varying degree, the EBCs contain items that match the scope of the new consensus definition of PJs. With the recent consensus definition, EBCs creators now have a clearer target, and can make adjustments.

A quality improvement programme in radiotherapy using workflow audits.

BACKGROUND: Evaluation of the quality of healthcare depends on measures of structures, processes and outcomes. Progress in recording data allows for better measures of processes, such as the completeness of clinical data, the performance of professional tasks and the use of checklists. OBJECTIVES: To report the results of a radiotherapy (RT) workflow audit and a subsequent online survey of user experience. METHODS: The RT workflow audit was developed in 2016 and has been undertaken twice a year at 28 facilities or units, with a total of 32 linear accelerators. Electronic patient folders were reviewed to assess the documentation of 90 task items, of which 64 were scored. The auditor came from another facility. The online survey took place in July 2020. It contained questions on the audit's process, professional value and future use. Invitations were sent by email to the 151 radiotherapist staff at the 28 units where the audit had been implemented. Responses were anonymous. RESULTS: For the RT workflow audit, scores improved from 60% in some units in 2016 to >90% in all units for at least 2 years since 2018. The number of responders to the online survey was 58, giving a responder rate of 38%. The margin of error of the results was 10%. The audit's task items were considered appropriate by 77% of responders, and feedback was reported by 78% of them. The audit was considered very or extremely valuable to their unit's service delivery by 58% of responders. Changes in the unit as a result of the audit were reported by 77% of responders. The audit was very useful or extremely useful to 75% of responders in maintaining personal professional standards. The proportion of responders who were very or extremely supportive of continuing with the audit was 77%. The comments in the online survey will be helpful for ongoing review of the RT workflow audit. CONCLUSIONS: The RT workflow audit extends the scope of accreditation audits by including measures of processes. Users of the audit evaluate its processes favourably and report that it has value both in their unit's clinical service and for their personal professional standards. The audit is effective in developing quality improvement programmes.

Epidemiology and reporting characteristics of preclinical systematic reviews.

In an effort to better utilize published evidence obtained from animal experiments, systematic reviews of preclinical studies are increasingly more common-along with the methods and tools to appraise them (e.g., SYstematic Review Center for Laboratory animal Experimentation [SYRCLE's] risk of bias tool). We performed a cross-sectional study of a sample of recent preclinical systematic reviews (2015-2018) and examined a range of epidemiological characteristics and used a 46-item checklist to assess reporting details. We identified 442 reviews published across 43 countries in 23 different disease domains that used 26 animal species. Reporting of key details to ensure transparency and reproducibility was inconsistent across reviews and within article sections. Items were most completely reported in the title, introduction, and results sections of the reviews, while least reported in the methods and discussion sections. Less than half of reviews reported that a risk of bias assessment for internal and external validity was undertaken, and none reported methods for evaluating construct validity. Our results demonstrate that a considerable number of preclinical systematic reviews investigating diverse topics have been conducted; however, their quality of reporting is inconsistent. Our study provides the justification and evidence to inform the development of guidelines for conducting and reporting preclinical systematic reviews.