Bilateral versus Single Internal-Thoracic-Artery Grafts at 10 Years.

BACKGROUND: Multiple arterial grafts may result in longer survival than single arterial grafts after coronary-artery bypass grafting (CABG) surgery. We evaluated the use of bilateral internal-thoracic-artery grafts for CABG. METHODS: We randomly assigned patients scheduled for CABG to undergo bilateral or single internal-thoracic-artery grafting. Additional arterial or vein grafts were used as indicated. The primary outcome was death from any cause at 10 years. The composite of death from any cause, myocardial infarction, or stroke was a secondary outcome. RESULTS: A total of 1548 patients were randomly assigned to undergo bilateral internal-thoracic-artery grafting (the bilateral-graft group) and 1554 to undergo single internal-thoracic-artery grafting (the single-graft group). In the bilateral-graft group, 13.9% of the patients received only a single internal-thoracic-artery graft, and in the single-graft group, 21.8% of the patients also received a radial-artery graft. Vital status was not known for 2.3% of the patients at 10 years. In the intention-to-treat analysis at 10 years, there were 315 deaths (20.3% of the patients) in the bilateral-graft group and 329 deaths (21.2%) in the single-graft group (hazard ratio, 0.96; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.82 to 1.12; P=0.62). Regarding the composite outcome of death, myocardial infarction, or stroke, there were 385 patients (24.9%) with an event in the bilateral-graft group and 425 patients (27.3%) with an event in the single-graft group (hazard ratio, 0.90; 95% CI, 0.79 to 1.03). CONCLUSIONS: Among patients who were scheduled for CABG and had been randomly assigned to undergo bilateral or single internal-thoracic-artery grafting, there was no significant between-group difference in the rate of death from any cause at 10 years in the intention-to-treat analysis. Further studies are needed to determine whether multiple arterial grafts provide better outcomes than a single internal-thoracic-artery graft. (Funded by the British Heath Foundation and others; Current Controlled Trials number, ISRCTN46552265 .).

Transparent Reporting of Multivariable Prediction Models in Journal and Conference Abstracts: TRIPOD for Abstracts.

Clear and informative reporting in titles and abstracts is essential to help readers and reviewers identify potentially relevant studies and decide whether to read the full text. Although the TRIPOD (Transparent Reporting of a multivariable prediction model for Individual Prognosis Or Diagnosis) statement provides general recommendations for reporting titles and abstracts, more detailed guidance seems to be desirable. The authors present TRIPOD for Abstracts, a checklist and corresponding guidance for reporting prediction model studies in abstracts. A list of 32 potentially relevant items was the starting point for a modified Delphi procedure involving 110 experts, of whom 71 (65%) participated in the web-based survey. After 2 Delphi rounds, the experts agreed on 21 items as being essential to report in abstracts of prediction model studies. This number was reduced by merging some of the items. In a third round, participants provided feedback on a draft version of TRIPOD for Abstracts. The final checklist contains 12 items and applies to journal and conference abstracts that describe the development or external validation of a diagnostic or prognostic prediction model, or the added value of predictors to an existing model, regardless of the clinical domain or statistical approach used.

A CHecklist for statistical Assessment of Medical Papers (the CHAMP statement): explanation and elaboration.

Misuse of statistics in medical and sports science research is common and may lead to detrimental consequences to healthcare. Many authors, editors and peer reviewers of medical papers will not have expert knowledge of statistics or may be unconvinced about the importance of applying correct statistics in medical research. Although there are guidelines on reporting statistics in medical papers, a checklist on the more general and commonly seen aspects of statistics to assess when peer-reviewing an article is needed. In this article, we propose a CHecklist for statistical Assessment of Medical Papers (CHAMP) comprising 30 items related to the design and conduct, data analysis, reporting and presentation, and interpretation of a research paper. While CHAMP is primarily aimed at editors and peer reviewers during the statistical assessment of a medical paper, we believe it will serve as a useful reference to improve authors' and readers' practice in their use of statistics in medical research. We strongly encourage editors and peer reviewers to consult CHAMP when assessing manuscripts for potential publication. Authors also may apply CHAMP to ensure the validity of their statistical approach and reporting of medical research, and readers may consider using CHAMP to enhance their statistical assessment of a paper.

Completeness of reporting of case reports in high-impact medical journals.

INTRODUCTION: Case reports represent a relevant, timely and important study design in advancing medical scientific knowledge. They allow integration between clinical practice and clinical epidemiology. We aimed to assess the completeness of reporting (COR) of case reports published in high-impact journals. We assessed the COR of case reports using the CARE guidelines. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We selected three high-impact journals and one journal specialized in publishing case reports, in which we included all published case reports from July to December 2017. Median COR score was calculated per study, and CORs were compared between journals with and without endorsement of CARE guidelines. RESULTS: One hundred and fourteen case reports were included. Overall median COR was 81%, IQR [63%-96%]. Sections with the highest COR (84%-100%) were patient information, clinical findings, therapeutic intervention, follow-up and outcomes, discussion and informed consent. Sections with the lowest COR were title, keywords, timeline and patient perspective (2%-34%). COR was higher in journals endorsing in comparison to those not endorsing CARE guidelines (77% vs 65%), respectively, median difference = -12% 95% CI [-16% to -7%]. DISCUSSION: Overall completeness of case reports in included journals is high especially for CARE endorsing and dedicated journals but reporting of some items could be improved. Ongoing and future evaluations of endorsement status of reporting guidelines in medical journals should be assessed to improve completeness and reduce waste of clinical research, including case reports.

COSMOS-E: Guidance on conducting systematic reviews and meta-analyses of observational studies of etiology.

BACKGROUND: To our knowledge, no publication providing overarching guidance on the conduct of systematic reviews of observational studies of etiology exists. METHODS AND FINDINGS: Conducting Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses of Observational Studies of Etiology (COSMOS-E) provides guidance on all steps in systematic reviews of observational studies of etiology, from shaping the research question, defining exposure and outcomes, to assessing the risk of bias and statistical analysis. The writing group included researchers experienced in meta-analyses and observational studies of etiology. Standard peer-review was performed. While the structure of systematic reviews of observational studies on etiology may be similar to that for systematic reviews of randomised controlled trials, there are specific tasks within each component that differ. Examples include assessment for confounding, selection bias, and information bias. In systematic reviews of observational studies of etiology, combining studies in meta-analysis may lead to more precise estimates, but such greater precision does not automatically remedy potential bias. Thorough exploration of sources of heterogeneity is key when assessing the validity of estimates and causality. CONCLUSION: As many reviews of observational studies on etiology are being performed, this document may provide researchers with guidance on how to conduct and analyse such reviews.

Randomized Trial of Bilateral versus Single Internal-Thoracic-Artery Grafts.

BACKGROUND: The use of bilateral internal thoracic (mammary) arteries for coronary-artery bypass grafting (CABG) may improve long-term outcomes as compared with the use of a single internal-thoracic-artery plus vein grafts. METHODS: We randomly assigned patients scheduled for CABG to undergo single or bilateral internal-thoracic-artery grafting in 28 cardiac surgical centers in seven countries. The primary outcome was death from any cause at 10 years. The composite of death from any cause, myocardial infarction, or stroke was a secondary outcome. Interim analyses were prespecified at 5 years of follow-up. RESULTS: A total of 3102 patients were enrolled; 1554 were randomly assigned to undergo single internal-thoracic-artery grafting (the single-graft group) and 1548 to undergo bilateral internal-thoracic-artery grafting (the bilateral-graft group). At 5 years of follow-up, the rate of death was 8.7% in the bilateral-graft group and 8.4% in the single-graft group (hazard ratio, 1.04; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.81 to 1.32; P=0.77), and the rate of the composite of death from any cause, myocardial infarction, or stroke was 12.2% and 12.7%, respectively (hazard ratio, 0.96; 95% CI, 0.79 to 1.17; P=0.69). The rate of sternal wound complication was 3.5% in the bilateral-graft group versus 1.9% in the single-graft group (P=0.005), and the rate of sternal reconstruction was 1.9% versus 0.6% (P=0.002). CONCLUSIONS: Among patients undergoing CABG, there was no significant difference between those receiving single internal-thoracic-artery grafts and those receiving bilateral internal-thoracic-artery grafts with regard to mortality or the rates of cardiovascular events at 5 years of follow-up. There were more sternal wound complications with bilateral internal-thoracic-artery grafting than with single internal-thoracic-artery grafting. Ten-year follow-up is ongoing. (Funded by the British Heart Foundation and others; ART Current Controlled Trials number, ISRCTN46552265 .).

Accuracy in detecting inadequate research reporting by early career peer reviewers using an online CONSORT-based peer-review tool (COBPeer) versus the usual peer-review process: a cross-sectional diagnostic study.

BACKGROUND: The peer review process has been questioned as it may fail to allow the publication of high-quality articles. This study aimed to evaluate the accuracy in identifying inadequate reporting in RCT reports by early career researchers (ECRs) using an online CONSORT-based peer-review tool (COBPeer) versus the usual peer-review process. METHODS: We performed a cross-sectional diagnostic study of 119 manuscripts, from BMC series medical journals, BMJ, BMJ Open, and Annals of Emergency Medicine reporting the results of two-arm parallel-group RCTs. One hundred and nineteen ECRs who had never reviewed an RCT manuscript were recruited from December 2017 to January 2018. Each ECR assessed one manuscript. To assess accuracy in identifying inadequate reporting, we used two tests: (1) ECRs assessing a manuscript using the COBPeer tool (after completing an online training module) and (2) the usual peer-review process. The reference standard was the assessment of the manuscript by two systematic reviewers. Inadequate reporting was defined as incomplete reporting or a switch in primary outcome and considered nine domains: the eight most important CONSORT domains and a switch in primary outcome(s). The primary outcome was the mean number of domains accurately classified (scale from 0 to 9). RESULTS: The mean (SD) number of domains (0 to 9) accurately classified per manuscript was 6.39 (1.49) for ECRs using COBPeer versus 5.03 (1.84) for the journal's usual peer-review process, with a mean difference [95% CI] of 1.36 [0.88-1.84] (p < 0.001). Concerning secondary outcomes, the sensitivity of ECRs using COBPeer versus the usual peer-review process in detecting incompletely reported CONSORT items was 86% [95% CI 82-89] versus 20% [16-24] and in identifying a switch in primary outcome 61% [44-77] versus 11% [3-26]. The specificity of ECRs using COBPeer versus the usual process to detect incompletely reported CONSORT domains was 61% [57-65] versus 77% [74-81] and to identify a switch in primary outcome 77% [67-86] versus 98% [92-100]. CONCLUSIONS: Trained ECRs using the COBPeer tool were more likely to detect inadequate reporting in RCTs than the usual peer review processes used by journals. Implementing a two-step peer-review process could help improve the quality of reporting. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Clinical.Trials.gov NCT03119376 (Registered April, 18, 2017).

Design and other methodological considerations for the construction of human fetal and neonatal size and growth charts.

This paper discusses the features of study design and methodological considerations for constructing reference centile charts for attained size, growth, and velocity charts with a focus on human growth charts used during pregnancy. Recent systematic reviews of pregnancy dating, fetal size, and newborn size charts showed that many studies aimed at constructing charts are still conducted poorly. Important design features such as inclusion and exclusion criteria, ultrasound quality control measures, sample size determination, anthropometric evaluation, gestational age estimation, assessment of outliers, and chart presentation are seldom well addressed, considered, or reported. Many of these charts are in clinical use today and directly affect the identification of at-risk newborns that require treatment and nutritional strategies. This paper therefore reiterates some of the concepts previously identified as important for growth studies, focusing on considerations and concepts related to study design, sample size, and methodological considerations with an aim of obtaining valid reference or standard centile charts. We discuss some of the key issues and provide more details and practical examples based on our experiences from the INTERGROWTH-21st Project. We discuss the statistical methodology and analyses for cross-sectional studies and longitudinal studies in a separate article in this issue.

Statistical methodology for constructing gestational age-related charts using cross-sectional and longitudinal data: The INTERGROWTH-21st project as a case study.

Most studies aiming to construct reference or standard charts use a cross-sectional design, collecting one measurement per participant. Reference or standard charts can also be constructed using a longitudinal design, collecting multiple measurements per participant. The choice of appropriate statistical methodology is important as inaccurate centiles resulting from inferior methods can lead to incorrect judgements about fetal or newborn size, resulting in suboptimal clinical care. Reference or standard centiles should ideally provide the best fit to the data, change smoothly with age (eg, gestational age), use as simple a statistical model as possible without compromising model fit, and allow the computation of Z-scores from centiles to simplify assessment of individuals and enable comparison with different populations. Significance testing and goodness-of-fit statistics are usually used to discriminate between models. However, these methods tend not to be useful when examining large data sets as very small differences are statistically significant even if the models are indistinguishable on actual centile plots. Choosing the best model from amongst many is therefore not trivial. Model choice should not be based on statistical considerations (or tests) alone as sometimes the best model may not necessarily offer the best fit to the raw data across gestational age. In this paper, we describe the most commonly applied methodologies available for the construction of age-specific reference or standard centiles for cross-sectional and longitudinal data: Fractional polynomial regression, LMS, LMST, LMSP, and multilevel regression methods. For illustration, we used data from the INTERGROWTH-21st Project, ie, newborn weight (cross-sectional) and fetal head circumference (longitudinal) data as examples.

Adherence to reporting guidelines increases the number of citations: the argument for including a methodologist in the editorial process and peer-review.

BACKGROUND: From 2005 to 2010, we conducted 2 randomized studies on a journal (Medicina Clínica), where we took manuscripts received for publication and randomly assigned them to either the standard editorial process or to additional processes. Both studies were based on the use of methodological reviewers and reporting guidelines (RG). Those interventions slightly improved the items reported on the Manuscript Quality Assessment Instrument (MQAI), which assesses the quality of the research report. However, masked evaluators were able to guess the allocated group in 62% (56/90) of the papers, thus presenting a risk of detection bias. In this post-hoc study, we analyse whether those interventions that were originally designed for improving the completeness of manuscript reporting may have had an effect on the number of citations, which is the measured outcome that we used. METHODS: Masked to the intervention group, one of us used the Web of Science (WoS) to quantify the number of citations that the participating manuscripts received up December 2016. We calculated the mean citation ratio between intervention arms and then quantified the uncertainty of it by means of the Jackknife method, which avoids assumptions about the distribution shape. RESULTS: Our study included 191 articles (99 and 92, respectively) from the two previous studies, which all together received 1336 citations. In both studies, the groups subjected to additional processes showed higher averages, standard deviations and annual rates. The intervention effect was similar in both studies, with a combined estimate of a 43% (95% CI: 3 to 98%) increase in the number of citations. CONCLUSIONS: We interpret that those effects are driven mainly by introducing into the editorial process a senior methodologist to find missing RG items. Those results are promising, but not definitive due to the exploratory nature of the study and some important caveats such as: the limitations of using the number of citations as a measure of scientific impact; and the fact that our study is based on a single journal. We invite journals to perform their own studies to ascertain whether or not scientific repercussion is increased by adhering to reporting guidelines and further involving statisticians in the editorial process.

Beta-blockers for heart failure with reduced, mid-range, and preserved ejection fraction: an individual patient-level analysis of double-blind randomized trials.

Aims: Recent guidelines recommend that patients with heart failure and left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) 40-49% should be managed similar to LVEF ≥ 50%. We investigated the effect of beta-blockers according to LVEF in double-blind, randomized, placebo-controlled trials. Methods and results: Individual patient data meta-analysis of 11 trials, stratified by baseline LVEF and heart rhythm (Clinicaltrials.gov: NCT0083244; PROSPERO: CRD42014010012). Primary outcomes were all-cause mortality and cardiovascular death over 1.3 years median follow-up, with an intention-to-treat analysis. For 14 262 patients in sinus rhythm, median LVEF was 27% (interquartile range 21-33%), including 575 patients with LVEF 40-49% and 244 ≥ 50%. Beta-blockers reduced all-cause and cardiovascular mortality compared to placebo in sinus rhythm, an effect that was consistent across LVEF strata, except for those in the small subgroup with LVEF ≥ 50%. For LVEF 40-49%, death occurred in 21/292 [7.2%] randomized to beta-blockers compared to 35/283 [12.4%] with placebo; adjusted hazard ratio (HR) 0.59 [95% confidence interval (CI) 0.34-1.03]. Cardiovascular death occurred in 13/292 [4.5%] with beta-blockers and 26/283 [9.2%] with placebo; adjusted HR 0.48 (95% CI 0.24-0.97). Over a median of 1.0 years following randomization (n = 4601), LVEF increased with beta-blockers in all groups in sinus rhythm except LVEF ≥50%. For patients in atrial fibrillation at baseline (n = 3050), beta-blockers increased LVEF when < 50% at baseline, but did not improve prognosis. Conclusion: Beta-blockers improve LVEF and prognosis for patients with heart failure in sinus rhythm with a reduced LVEF. The data are most robust for LVEF < 40%, but similar benefit was observed in the subgroup of patients with LVEF 40-49%.

Reporting of Multi-Arm Parallel-Group Randomized Trials: Extension of the CONSORT 2010 Statement.

IMPORTANCE: The quality of reporting of randomized clinical trials is suboptimal. In an era in which the need for greater research transparency is paramount, inadequate reporting hinders assessment of the reliability and validity of trial findings. The Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials (CONSORT) 2010 Statement was developed to improve the reporting of randomized clinical trials, but the primary focus was on parallel-group trials with 2 groups. Multi-arm trials that use a parallel-group design (comparing treatments by concurrently randomizing participants to one of the treatment groups, usually with equal probability) but have 3 or more groups are relatively common. The quality of reporting of multi-arm trials varies substantially, making judgments and interpretation difficult. While the majority of the elements of the CONSORT 2010 Statement apply equally to multi-arm trials, some elements need adaptation, and, in some cases, additional issues need to be clarified. OBJECTIVE: To present an extension to the CONSORT 2010 Statement for reporting multi-arm trials to facilitate the reporting of such trials. DESIGN: A guideline writing group, which included all authors, formed following the CONSORT group meeting in 2014. The authors met in person and by teleconference bimonthly between 2014 and 2018 to develop and revise the checklist and the accompanying text, with additional discussions by email. A draft manuscript was circulated to the wider CONSORT group of 36 individuals, plus 5 other selected individuals known for their specialist knowledge in clinical trials, for review. Extensive feedback was received from 14 individuals and, after detailed consideration of their comments, a final revised version of the extension was prepared. FINDINGS: This CONSORT extension for multi-arm trials expands on 10 items of the CONSORT 2010 checklist and provides examples of good reporting and a rationale for the importance of each extension item. Key recommendations are that multi-arm trials should be identified as such and require clear objectives and hypotheses referring to all of the treatment groups. Primary treatment comparisons should be identified and authors should report the planned and unplanned comparisons resulting from multiple groups completely and transparently. If statistical adjustments for multiplicity are applied, the rationale and method used should be described. CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: This extension of the CONSORT 2010 Statement provides specific guidance for the reporting of multi-arm parallel-group randomized clinical trials and should help provide greater transparency and accuracy in the reporting of such trials.

Germline BRCA mutation and outcome in young-onset breast cancer (POSH): a prospective cohort study.

BACKGROUND: Retrospective studies provide conflicting interpretations of the effect of inherited genetic factors on the prognosis of patients with breast cancer. The primary aim of this study was to determine the effect of a germline BRCA1 or BRCA2 mutation on breast cancer outcomes in patients with young-onset breast cancer. METHODS: We did a prospective cohort study of female patients recruited from 127 hospitals in the UK aged 40 years or younger at first diagnosis (by histological confirmation) of invasive breast cancer. Patients with a previous invasive malignancy (except non-melanomatous skin cancer) were excluded. Patients were identified within 12 months of initial diagnosis. BRCA1 and BRCA2 mutations were identified using blood DNA collected at recruitment. Clinicopathological data, and data regarding treatment and long-term outcomes, including date and site of disease recurrence, were collected from routine medical records at 6 months, 12 months, and then annually until death or loss to follow-up. The primary outcome was overall survival for all BRCA1 or BRCA2 mutation carriers (BRCA-positive) versus all non-carriers (BRCA-negative) at 2 years, 5 years, and 10 years after diagnosis. A prespecified subgroup analysis of overall survival was done in patients with triple-negative breast cancer. Recruitment was completed in 2008, and long-term follow-up is continuing. FINDINGS: Between Jan 24, 2000, and Jan 24, 2008, we recruited 2733 women. Genotyping detected a pathogenic BRCA mutation in 338 (12%) patients (201 with BRCA1, 137 with BRCA2). After a median follow-up of 8·2 years (IQR 6·0-9·9), 651 (96%) of 678 deaths were due to breast cancer. There was no significant difference in overall survival between BRCA-positive and BRCA-negative patients in multivariable analyses at any timepoint (at 2 years: 97·0% [95% CI 94·5-98·4] vs 96·6% [95·8-97·3]; at 5 years: 83·8% [79·3-87·5] vs 85·0% [83·5-86·4]; at 10 years: 73·4% [67·4-78·5] vs 70·1% [67·7-72·3]; hazard ratio [HR] 0·96 [95% CI 0·76-1·22]; p=0·76). Of 558 patients with triple-negative breast cancer, BRCA mutation carriers had better overall survival than non-carriers at 2 years (95% [95% CI 89-97] vs 91% [88-94]; HR 0·59 [95% CI 0·35-0·99]; p=0·047) but not 5 years (81% [73-87] vs 74% [70-78]; HR 1·13 [0·70-1·84]; p=0·62) or 10 years (72% [62-80] vs 69% [63-74]; HR 2·12 [0·82-5·49]; p= 0·12). INTERPRETATION: Patients with young-onset breast cancer who carry a BRCA mutation have similar survival as non-carriers. However, BRCA mutation carriers with triple-negative breast cancer might have a survival advantage during the first few years after diagnosis compared with non-carriers. Decisions about timing of additional surgery aimed at reducing future second primary-cancer risks should take into account patient prognosis associated with the first malignancy and patient preferences. FUNDING: Cancer Research UK, the UK National Cancer Research Network, the Wessex Cancer Trust, Breast Cancer Now, and the PPP Healthcare Medical Trust Grant.

Associations Between Adding a Radial Artery Graft to Single and Bilateral Internal Thoracic Artery Grafts and Outcomes: Insights From the Arterial Revascularization Trial.

BACKGROUND: Whether the use of the radial artery (RA) can improve clinical outcomes in coronary artery bypass graft surgery remains unclear. The ART (Arterial Revascularization Trial) was designed to compare survival after bilateral internal thoracic artery (BITA) over single left internal thoracic artery (SITA). In the ART, a large proportion of patients (≈20%) also received an RA graft instead of a saphenous vein graft (SVG). We aimed to investigate the associations between using the RA instead of an SVG to supplement SITA or BITA grafts and outcomes by performing a post hoc analysis of the ART. METHODS: Patients enrolled in the ART (n=3102) were classified on the basis of conduits actually received (as treated). The analysis included 2737 patients who received an RA graft (RA group; n=632) or SVG only (SVG group; n=2105) in addition to SITA or BITA grafts. The primary end point was the composite of myocardial infarction, cardiovascular death, and repeat revascularization at 5 years. Propensity score matching and stratified Cox regression were used to compare the 2 strategies. RESULTS: Myocardial infarction, cardiovascular death, and repeat revascularization cumulative incidence was 2.3% (95% confidence interval [CI], 1.1-3.4), 3.5% (95% CI, 2.1-5.0), and 4.4% (95% CI, 2.8-6.0) in the RA group and 3.4% (95% CI, 2.0-4.8), 4.0% (95% CI, 2.5-5.6), and 7.6% (95% CI, 5.5-9.7) in the SVG group, respectively. The composite end point was significantly lower in the RA group (8.8%; 95% CI, 6.5-11.0) compared with the SVG group (13.6%; 95% CI, 10.8-16.3; P=0.005). This association was present when an RA graft was used to supplement both SITA and BITA grafts (interaction P=0.62). CONCLUSIONS: This post hoc ART analysis showed that an additional RA was associated with lower risk for midterm major adverse cardiac events when used to supplement SITA or BITA grafts. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION: URL: https://www.situ.ox.ac.uk/surgical-trials/art. Unique identifier: ISRCTN46552265.

Reporting guidelines for oncology research: helping to maximise the impact of your research.

Many reports of health research omit important information needed to assess their methodological robustness and clinical relevance. Without clear and complete reporting, it is not possible to identify flaws or biases, reproduce successful interventions, or use the findings in systematic reviews or meta-analyses. The EQUATOR Network (http://www.equator-network.org/) promotes responsible reporting and the use of reporting guidelines to improve the accuracy, completeness, and transparency of health research. EQUATOR supports researchers by providing online resources and training. EQUATOR Oncology, a project funded by Cancer Research UK, aims to support cancer researchers reporting their research through the provision of online resources. In this article, our objective is to highlight reporting issues related to oncology research publications and to introduce reporting guidelines that are designed to aid high-quality reporting. We describe generic reporting guidelines for the main study types, and explain how these guidelines should and should not be used. We also describe 37 oncology-specific reporting guidelines, covering different clinical areas (e.g., haematology or urology) and sections of the report (e.g., methods or study characteristics); most of these are little-used. We also provide some background information on EQUATOR Oncology, which focuses on addressing the reporting needs of the oncology research community.

Overinterpretation and misreporting of prognostic factor studies in oncology: a systematic review.

BACKGROUND: Cancer prognostic biomarkers have shown disappointing clinical applicability. The objective of this study was to classify and estimate how study results are overinterpreted and misreported in prognostic factor studies in oncology. METHODS: This systematic review focused on 17 oncology journals with an impact factor above 7. PubMed was searched for primary clinical studies published in 2015, evaluating prognostic factors. We developed a classification system, focusing on three domains: misleading reporting (selective, incomplete reporting, misreporting), misleading interpretation (unreliable statistical analysis, spin) and misleading extrapolation of the results (claiming irrelevant clinical applicability, ignoring uncertainty). RESULTS: Our search identified 10,844 articles. The 98 studies included investigated a median of two prognostic factors (Q1-Q3, 1-7). The prognostic factors' effects were selectively and incompletely reported in 35/98 and 24/98 full texts, respectively. Twenty-nine articles used linguistic spin in the form of strong statements. Linguistic spin rejecting non-significant results was found in 34 full-text results and 15 abstract results sections. One in five articles had discussion and/or abstract conclusions that were inconsistent with the study findings. Sixteen reports had discrepancies between their full-text and abstract conclusions. CONCLUSIONS: Our study provides evidence of frequent overinterpretation of findings of prognostic factor assessment in high-impact medical oncology journals.

Poor reporting of multivariable prediction model studies: towards a targeted implementation strategy of the TRIPOD statement.

BACKGROUND: As complete reporting is essential to judge the validity and applicability of multivariable prediction models, a guideline for the Transparent Reporting of a multivariable prediction model for Individual Prognosis Or Diagnosis (TRIPOD) was introduced. We assessed the completeness of reporting of prediction model studies published just before the introduction of the TRIPOD statement, to refine and tailor its implementation strategy. METHODS: Within each of 37 clinical domains, 10 journals with the highest journal impact factor were selected. A PubMed search was performed to identify prediction model studies published before the launch of TRIPOD in these journals (May 2014). Eligible publications reported on the development or external validation of a multivariable prediction model (either diagnostic or prognostic) or on the incremental value of adding a predictor to an existing model. RESULTS: We included 146 publications (84% prognostic), from which we assessed 170 models: 73 (43%) on model development, 43 (25%) on external validation, 33 (19%) on incremental value, and 21 (12%) on combined development and external validation of the same model. Overall, publications adhered to a median of 44% (25th-75th percentile 35-52%) of TRIPOD items, with 44% (35-53%) for prognostic and 41% (34-48%) for diagnostic models. TRIPOD items that were completely reported for less than 25% of the models concerned abstract (2%), title (5%), blinding of predictor assessment (6%), comparison of development and validation data (11%), model updating (14%), model performance (14%), model specification (17%), characteristics of participants (21%), model performance measures (methods) (21%), and model-building procedures (24%). Most often reported were TRIPOD items regarding overall interpretation (96%), source of data (95%), and risk groups (90%). CONCLUSIONS: More than half of the items considered essential for transparent reporting were not fully addressed in publications of multivariable prediction model studies. Essential information for using a model in individual risk prediction, i.e. model specifications and model performance, was incomplete for more than 80% of the models. Items that require improved reporting are title, abstract, and model-building procedures, as they are crucial for identification and external validation of prediction models.

Development process of a consensus-driven CONSORT extension for randomised trials using an adaptive design.

BACKGROUND: Adequate reporting of adaptive designs (ADs) maximises their potential benefits in the conduct of clinical trials. Transparent reporting can help address some obstacles and concerns relating to the use of ADs. Currently, there are deficiencies in the reporting of AD trials. To overcome this, we have developed a consensus-driven extension to the CONSORT statement for randomised trials using an AD. This paper describes the processes and methods used to develop this extension rather than detailed explanation of the guideline. METHODS: We developed the guideline in seven overlapping stages: 1) Building on prior research to inform the need for a guideline; 2) A scoping literature review to inform future stages; 3) Drafting the first checklist version involving an External Expert Panel; 4) A two-round Delphi process involving international, multidisciplinary, and cross-sector key stakeholders; 5) A consensus meeting to advise which reporting items to retain through voting, and to discuss the structure of what to include in the supporting explanation and elaboration (E&E) document; 6) Refining and finalising the checklist; and 7) Writing-up and dissemination of the E&E document. The CONSORT Executive Group oversaw the entire development process. RESULTS: Delphi survey response rates were 94/143 (66%), 114/156 (73%), and 79/143 (55%) in rounds 1, 2, and across both rounds, respectively. Twenty-seven delegates from Europe, the USA, and Asia attended the consensus meeting. The main checklist has seven new and nine modified items and six unchanged items with expanded E&E text to clarify further considerations for ADs. The abstract checklist has one new and one modified item together with an unchanged item with expanded E&E text. The E&E document will describe the scope of the guideline, the definition of an AD, and some types of ADs and trial adaptations and explain each reporting item in detail including case studies. CONCLUSIONS: We hope that making the development processes, methods, and all supporting information that aided decision-making transparent will enhance the acceptability and quick uptake of the guideline. This will also help other groups when developing similar CONSORT extensions. The guideline is applicable to all randomised trials with an AD and contains minimum reporting requirements.

The INTERGROWTH-21st fetal growth standards: toward the global integration of pregnancy and pediatric care.

The purpose of the INTERGROWTH-21st project was to develop international, prescriptive standards for fetal growth assessed by ultrasound and fundal height, preterm postnatal growth, newborn size and body composition, maternal weight gain, and infant development at the age of 2 years. Hence, we have produced, based on World Health Organization recommendations, the first comprehensive set of international standards of optimal fetal and newborn growth that perfectly match the existing World Health Organization child growth standards. Uniquely, the same population was followed up longitudinally from 9 weeks of fetal life to 2 years of age, with growth, health, and nutritional status assessment at 2 years supporting the appropriateness of the population for construction of growth standards. The resulting package of clinical tools allows, for the first time, growth and development to be monitored from early pregnancy to infancy. The INTERGROWTH-21st fetal growth standards, which are based on observing >4500 healthy pregnancies, nested in a study of >59,000 pregnancies from populations with low rates of adverse perinatal outcomes, show how fetuses should grow-rather than the more limited objective of past references, which describe how they have grown at specific times and locations. Our work has confirmed the fundamental biological principle that variation in human growth across different populations is mostly dependent on environmental, nutritional, and socioeconomic factors. We found that when mothers' nutritional and health needs are met and there are few environmental constraints on growth, <3.5% of the total variability of skeletal growth was due to differences between populations. We propose that not recognizing the concept of optimal growth could deprive the most vulnerable mothers and their babies of optimal care, because local growth charts normalize those at highest risk for growth restriction and overweight, and can be valuable for policymakers to ensure rigorous evaluation and effective resource allocation. We strongly encourage colleagues to join efforts to provide integrated, evidence-based growth monitoring to pregnant women and their infants worldwide. Presently, there are 23.3 million infants born small for gestational age in low- to middle-income countries according to the INTERGROWTH-21st newborn size standards. We suggest that misclassification of these infants by using local charts could affect the delivery of optimal health care.

The satisfactory growth and development at 2 years of age of the INTERGROWTH-21st Fetal Growth Standards cohort support its appropriateness for constructing international standards.

BACKGROUND: The World Health Organization recommends that human growth should be monitored with the use of international standards. However, in obstetric practice, we continue to monitor fetal growth using numerous local charts or equations that are based on different populations for each body structure. Consistent with World Health Organization recommendations, the INTERGROWTH-21st Project has produced the first set of international standards to date pregnancies; to monitor fetal growth, estimated fetal weight, Doppler measures, and brain structures; to measure uterine growth, maternal nutrition, newborn infant size, and body composition; and to assess the postnatal growth of preterm babies. All these standards are based on the same healthy pregnancy cohort. Recognizing the importance of demonstrating that, postnatally, this cohort still adhered to the World Health Organization prescriptive approach, we followed their growth and development to the key milestone of 2 years of age. OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this study was to determine whether the babies in the INTERGROWTH-21st Project maintained optimal growth and development in childhood. STUDY DESIGN: In the Infant Follow-up Study of the INTERGROWTH-21st Project, we evaluated postnatal growth, nutrition, morbidity, and motor development up to 2 years of age in the children who contributed data to the construction of the international fetal growth, newborn infant size and body composition at birth, and preterm postnatal growth standards. Clinical care, feeding practices, anthropometric measures, and assessment of morbidity were standardized across study sites and documented at 1 and 2 years of age. Weight, length, and head circumference age- and sex-specific z-scores and percentiles and motor development milestones were estimated with the use of the World Health Organization Child Growth Standards and World Health Organization milestone distributions, respectively. For the preterm infants, corrected age was used. Variance components analysis was used to estimate the percentage variability among individuals within a study site compared with that among study sites. RESULTS: There were 3711 eligible singleton live births; 3042 children (82%) were evaluated at 2 years of age. There were no substantive differences between the included group and the lost-to-follow up group. Infant mortality rate was 3 per 1000; neonatal mortality rate was 1.6 per 1000. At the 2-year visit, the children included in the INTERGROWTH-21st Fetal Growth Standards were at the 49th percentile for length, 50th percentile for head circumference, and 58th percentile for weight of the World Health Organization Child Growth Standards. Similar results were seen for the preterm subgroup that was included in the INTERGROWTH-21st Preterm Postnatal Growth Standards. The cohort overlapped between the 3rd and 97th percentiles of the World Health Organization motor development milestones. We estimated that the variance among study sites explains only 5.5% of the total variability in the length of the children between birth and 2 years of age, although the variance among individuals within a study site explains 42.9% (ie, 8 times the amount explained by the variation among sites). An increase of 8.9 cm in adult height over mean parental height is estimated to occur in the cohort from low-middle income countries, provided that children continue to have adequate health, environmental, and nutritional conditions. CONCLUSION: The cohort enrolled in the INTERGROWTH-21st standards remained healthy with adequate growth and motor development up to 2 years of age, which supports its appropriateness for the construction of international fetal and preterm postnatal growth standards.