Co-design workshops to develop evidence synthesis summary formats for use by clinical guideline development groups.

BACKGROUND: Evidence synthesis is used by decision-makers in various ways, such as developing evidence-based recommendations for clinical guidelines. Clinical guideline development groups (GDGs) typically discuss evidence synthesis findings in a multidisciplinary group, including patients, healthcare providers, policymakers, etc. A recent mixed methods systematic review (MMSR) identified no gold standard format for optimally presenting evidence synthesis findings to these groups. However, it provided 94 recommendations to help produce more effective summary formats for general evidence syntheses (e.g., systematic reviews). To refine the MMSR recommendations to create more actionable guidance for summary producers, we aimed to explore these 94 recommendations with participants involved in evidence synthesis and guideline development. METHODS: We conducted a descriptive qualitative study using online focus group workshops in February and March 2023. These groups used a participatory co-design approach with interactive voting activities to identify preferences for a summary format's essential content and style. We created a topic guide focused on recommendations from the MMSR with mixed methods support, ≥ 3 supporting studies, and those prioritized by an expert advisory group via a pragmatic prioritization exercise using the MoSCoW method (Must, Should, Could, and Will not haves). Eligible participants must be/have been involved in GDGs and/or evidence synthesis. Groups were recorded and transcribed. Two independent researchers analyzed transcripts using directed content analysis with 94 pre-defined codes from the MMSR. RESULTS: Thirty individuals participated in six focus groups. We coded 79 of the 94 pre-defined codes. Participants suggested a "less is more" structured approach that minimizes methodological steps and statistical data, promoting accessibility to all audiences by judicious use of links to further information in the full report. They emphasized concise, consistently presented formats that highlight key messages, flag readers to indicators of trust in the producers (i.e., logos, websites, and conflict of interest statements), and highlight the certainty of evidence (without extenuating details). CONCLUSIONS: This study identified guidance based on the preferences of guideline developers and evidence synthesis producers about the format of evidence synthesis summaries to support decision-making. The next steps involve developing and user-testing prototype formats through one-on-one semi-structured interviews to optimize evidence synthesis summaries and support decision-making.

Research Report: A Link between Sertraline Treatment and Susceptibility to (Mis)information.

Recent research revealed that several psycho-cognitive processes, such as insensitivity to positive and negative feedback, cognitive rigidity, pessimistic judgment bias, and anxiety, are involved in susceptibility to fake news. All of these processes have been previously associated with depressive disorder and are sensitive to serotoninergic manipulations. In the current study, a link between chronic treatment with the selective serotonin reuptake inhibitor (SSRI) sertraline and susceptibility to true and fake news was examined. Herein, a sample of 1162 participants was recruited via Prolific Academic for an online study. Half of the sample reported taking sertraline (Zoloft) for at least 8 weeks (sertraline group), and the other half confirmed not taking any psychiatric medication (control group). The sertraline group was further divided according to their daily dosage (50, 100, 150, and 200 mg/day). All participants completed a susceptibility to misinformation scale, wherein they were asked to determine the veracity of the presented true and fake news and their willingness to behaviorally engage with the news. The results were compared between those of the sertraline groups and the control group. The results showed that sertraline groups did not differ significantly in the assessment of the truthfulness of information or their ability to discern the truth. However, those taking sertraline appeared to have a significantly increased likelihood of behavioral engagement with the information, and this effect was observed for both true and fake news. The research presented here represents the initial endeavor to comprehend the neurochemical foundation of the susceptibility to misinformation. The association between sertraline treatment and increased behavioral engagement with information observed in this study can be explained in light of previous studies showing positive correlations between serotonin (5-HT) system activity and the inclination to engage in social behaviors. It can also be attributed to the anxiolytic effects of sertraline treatment, which mitigate the fear of social judgment. The heightened behavioral engagement with information in people taking sertraline may, as part of a general phenomenon, also shape their interactions with fake news. Future longitudinal studies should reveal the specificity and exact causality of these interactions.

Low awareness of the transitivity assumption in complex networks of interventions: a systematic survey from 721 network meta-analyses.

BACKGROUND: The transitivity assumption is the cornerstone of network meta-analysis (NMA). Violating transitivity compromises the credibility of the indirect estimates and, by extent, the estimated treatment effects of the comparisons in the network. The present study offers comprehensive empirical evidence on the completeness of reporting and evaluating transitivity in systematic reviews with multiple interventions. METHODS: We screened the datasets of two previous empirical studies, resulting in 361 systematic reviews with NMA published between January 2011 and April 2015. We updated our evidence base with an additional 360 systematic reviews with NMA published between 2016 and 2021, employing a pragmatic approach. We devised assessment criteria for reporting and evaluating transitivity using relevant methodological literature and compared their reporting frequency before and after the PRISMA-NMA statement. RESULTS: Systematic reviews published after PRISMA-NMA were more likely to provide a protocol (odds ratio (OR): 3.94, 95% CI: 2.79-5.64), pre-plan the transitivity evaluation (OR: 3.01, 95% CI: 1.54-6.23), and report the evaluation and results (OR: 2.10, 95% CI: 1.55-2.86) than those before PRISMA-NMA. However, systematic reviews after PRISMA-NMA were less likely to define transitivity (OR: 0.57, 95% CI: 0.42-0.79) and discuss the implications of transitivity (OR: 0.48, 95% CI: 0.27-0.85) than those published before PRISMA-NMA. Most systematic reviews evaluated transitivity statistically than conceptually (40% versus 12% before PRISMA-NMA, and 54% versus 11% after PRISMA-NMA), with consistency evaluation being the most preferred (34% before versus 47% after PRISMA-NMA). One in five reviews inferred the plausibility of the transitivity (22% before versus 18% after PRISMA-NMA), followed by 11% of reviews that found it difficult to judge transitivity due to insufficient data. In justifying their conclusions, reviews considered mostly the comparability of the trials (24% before versus 30% after PRISMA-NMA), followed by the consistency evaluation (23% before versus 16% after PRISMA-NMA). CONCLUSIONS: Overall, there has been a slight improvement in reporting and evaluating transitivity since releasing PRISMA-NMA, particularly in items related to the systematic review report. Nevertheless, there has been limited attention to pre-planning the transitivity evaluation and low awareness of the conceptual evaluation methods that align with the nature of the assumption.

Learning from climate change news: Is the world on the same page?

Climate change challenges countries around the world, and news media are key to the public's awareness and perception of it. But how are news media approaching climate change across countries? With the problem of climate change and its solution being global, it is key to determine whether differences in climate change news reports exist and what they are across countries. This study employs supervised machine learning to uncover topical and terminological differences between newspaper articles on climate change. An original dataset of climate change articles is presented, originating from 7 newspapers and 3 countries across the world, and published in English during 26 Conference of the Parties (COP) meetings from the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCC). Three aspects are used to discriminate between articles, being (1) countries, (2) political orientations, and (3) COP meetings. Our results reveal differences with regard to how newspaper articles approach climate change globally. Specifically, climate change-related terminology of left-oriented newspapers is more prevalent compared to their right-oriented counterparts. Also, over the years, newspapers' climate change-related terminology has evolved to convey a greater sense of urgency.

Radioport: a radiomics-reporting network for interpretable deep learning in BI-RADS classification of mammographic calcification.

Objective.Generally, due to a lack of explainability, radiomics based on deep learning has been perceived as a black-box solution for radiologists. Automatic generation of diagnostic reports is a semantic approach to enhance the explanation of deep learning radiomics (DLR).Approach.In this paper, we propose a novel model called radiomics-reporting network (Radioport), which incorporates text attention. This model aims to improve the interpretability of DLR in mammographic calcification diagnosis. Firstly, it employs convolutional neural networks to extract visual features as radiomics for multi-category classification based on breast imaging reporting and data system. Then, it builds a mapping between these visual features and textual features to generate diagnostic reports, incorporating an attention module for improved clarity.Main results.To demonstrate the effectiveness of our proposed model, we conducted experiments on a breast calcification dataset comprising mammograms and diagnostic reports. The results demonstrate that our model can: (i) semantically enhance the interpretability of DLR; and, (ii) improve the readability of generated medical reports.Significance.Our interpretable textual model can explicitly simulate the mammographic calcification diagnosis process.

Frequency and classification of addenda in paediatric neuroradiological reports as part of quality assurance.

AIM: To determine the frequency and classification of addenda seen in paediatric brain magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) reports. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A retrospective review of the addenda of brain MRI reports from a large tertiary children's hospital was undertaken between January 2013 to December 2021 and a subset of above radiology reports was used to classify addenda over 6-month periods, October to March, spanning 2018 to 2021. A radiology fellow and a medical doctor classified the addenda into previously published categories using their best judgement. RESULTS: Out of 73,643 brain MRI reports over 9 years (108 months) included in the study, only 923 reports (1.25%) had addenda. There was a total of 13,615 brain MRI reports from 6-month periods, of which only 179 reports (1.31%) had an addendum. The number of errors according to categories were: observational 88/13,615 (0.65%); interpretational 16/13,615 (0.12%); non-observational and non-interpretative 82/13,615 (0.6%). Notifications to referring physician made in 29/13,615 (0.21%). CONCLUSIONS: The overall proportion of addenda to the brain MRI reports of children in the present study was low, at 1.25%. Categorisation of different addenda revealed the most common errors to be observational in 0.65%, including under-reading in the region of interest in 0.25%. Appropriate measures can now be introduced to minimise the error-based addenda further and improve MRI diagnosis in children. Other paediatric practices may choose to follow suit in evaluating their addenda and errors to improve practice.

Recommendations and feedback from the European Bioanalysis Forum Workshop: 1 year into ICH M10 - keeping our finger on the pulse.

The ICH M10 guideline on bioanalytical method validation and sample analysis is being adopted since 2023. However, and inevitably, some paragraphs or requirements remain ambiguous and are open for different interpretations. In support of a harmonized interpretation by the industry and health authorities, the European Bioanalysis Forum organized a workshop on 14 November 2023 in Barcelona, Spain, to discuss unclear and/or ambiguous paragraphs which were identified by the European Bioanalysis Forum community and delegates of the workshop prior to the workshop. This manuscript reports back from the workshop with recommendations and aims at continuing an open scientific discussion within the industry and with regulators in support of a science-driven guideline for the bioanalytical community and in line with the ICH mission - that is, achieve greater harmonization worldwide to ensure that safe, effective and high-quality medicines are developed and registered in the most resource-efficient manner.

Reporting guidelines for traditional Chinese medicine could be improved: a cross-sectional study.

OBJECTIVES: The aim of this study is to identify available reporting guidelines for traditional Chinese medicine (TCM), delineate their fundamental characteristics, assess the scientific rigor of their development process, and evaluate their dissemination. STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING: A search was conducted in Medline (via PubMed), China National Knowledge Infrastructure (CNKI), SinoMed, WANFANG DATA, and the EQUATOR Network to identify TCM reporting guidelines. A preprepared Excel database was used to extract information on the basic characteristics, development process, and dissemination information. The development process quality of TCM reporting guidelines was assessed by evaluating their compliance with the Guidance for Developers of Health Research Reporting Guidelines (GDHRRG). The extent of dissemination of these guidelines was analyzed by examining the number of citations received. RESULTS: A total of 26 reporting guidelines for TCM were obtained from 20 academic journals, with 61.5% of them published in English journals. Among the guidelines, 14 (53.8%) were registered in the EQUATOR Network. On average, the compliance rate of GDHRRG guidelines was reported to be 63.3% ranging from 22.2% to 94.4%. Three steps showed poor compliance, namely guideline endorsement (23.1%), translated guidelines (19.2%), and developing a publication strategy (19.2%). Furthermore, the compliance rate of GDHRRG guidelines published in English journals was higher than that in Chinese journals. In terms of the dissemination, 15.4% of the guidelines had been cited over 100 times, while 73.1% had been cited less than 50 times. CONCLUSION: The development of TCM reporting guidelines still has limitations in terms of regarding scientific rigor and follow-up dissemination. Therefore, it is important to ensure adherence to the scientific process in the development of TCM reporting guidelines and to strengthen their promotion, dissemination, and implementation.

Brief research report: impact of vaccination on antibody responses and mortality from severe COVID-19.

Introduction: While it is established that vaccination reduces risk of hospitalization, there is conflicting data on whether it improves outcome among hospitalized COVID-19 patients. This study evaluated clinical outcomes and antibody (Ab) responses to severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus-2 (SARS-CoV-2) infection/vaccines in patients with acute respiratory failure (ARF) and various comorbidities. Methods: In this single-center study, 152 adult patients were admitted to Ohio State University hospital with ARF (05/2020 - 11/2022) including 112 COVID-19-positive and 40 COVID-19-negative patients. Of the COVID-19 positive patients, 23 were vaccinated for SARS-CoV-2 (Vax), and 89 were not (NVax). Of the NVax COVID-19 patients, 46 were admitted before and 43 after SARS-CoV-2 vaccines were approved. SARS-CoV-2 Ab levels were measured/analyzed based on various demographic and clinical parameters of COVID-19 patients. Additionally, total IgG4 Ab concentrations were compared between the Vax and NVax patients. Results: While mortality rates were 36% (n=25) and 27% (n=15) for non-COVID-19 NVax and Vax patients, respectively, in COVID-19 patients mortality rates were 37% (NVax, n=89) and 70% (Vax, n=23). Among COVID-19 patients, mortality rate was significantly higher among Vax vs. NVax patients (p=0.002). The Charlson's Comorbidity Index score (CCI) was also significantly higher among Vax vs. NVax COVID-19 patients. However, the mortality risk remained significantly higher (p=0.02) when we compared COVID-19 Vax vs. NVax patients with similar CCI score, suggesting that additional factors may increase risk of mortality. Higher levels of SARS-CoV-2 Abs were noted among survivors, suggestive of their protective role. We observed a trend for increased total IgG4 Ab, which promotes immune tolerance, in the Vax vs. NVax patients in week 3. Conclusion: Although our cohort size is small, our results suggest that vaccination status of hospital-admitted COVID-19 patients may not be instructive in determining mortality risk. This may reflect that within the general population, those individuals at highest risk for COVID-19 mortality/immune failure are likely to be vaccinated. Importantly, the value of vaccination may be in preventing hospitalization as opposed to stratifying outcome among hospitalized patients, although our data do not address this possibility. Additional research to identify factors predictive of aberrant immunogenic responses to vaccination is warranted.

Consolidated Health Economic Evaluation Reporting Standards 2022 (CHEERS II) statement: a validated Dutch translation.

OBJECTIVES: This study primarily aimed to develop a validated Dutch translation of the 28 items of the Consolidated Health Economic Evaluation Reporting Standards (CHEERS) II. A secondary aim was to provide a worked example of a scientifically valid translation process. METHODS: A four-step process was applied: (1) forward translation, (2) backward translation, (3) quantitative validation (two back-translated English versions vs. original English version), and (4) qualitative validation (one Dutch version vs. original English version), resulting in the final Dutch CHEERS II checklist. RESULTS: During quantitative validation, the average scores indicated high language comparability (1.88 (SD 0.70); 1.70 (SD 0.73)) and interpretation similarity (1.77 (SD 0.81); 1.54 (SD 0.74)). Four items required formal revision. In the qualitative validation step, feedback primarily focused on specific terms 'outcomes,' 'benefits and harms,' '(year of) conversion,' 'any,' and 'characterizing.' CONCLUSION: Despite English being the common language of science, translating research instruments remains relevant to enhance clarity, accessibility, and inclusivity. The Dutch translation can be used by students, regulators, researchers, or others to report and evaluate reporting of economic evaluations. Our detailed description of the applied methodology can facilitate future translations of research instruments.

Summary Report of a Public Workshop: Case Studies of Multi-Regional Clinical Trial Incorporating Concept of the ICH E17 Guideline.

To further our understanding of the International Council for Harmonization of Technical Requirements for Pharmaceuticals for Human Use (ICH) E17 guideline and promote effective implementation, a public workshop was held in Japan by regulatory agency and industry representatives. In this workshop, important concepts explained in the ICH E17 guideline, such as intrinsic/extrinsic ethnic factors that influence treatment effects ("effect modifiers") and the holistic evaluation of consistency of treatment effect were actively discussed through case studies. The importance of holistic evaluation of consistency was recognized, and it was concluded that the evaluation and relevant discussion should be shared with regulatory authorities, sponsors, and broader stakeholders.