Systematic review on the frequency and quality of reporting patient and public involvement in patient safety research.

BACKGROUND: In recent years, patient and public involvement (PPI) in research has significantly increased; however, the reporting of PPI remains poor. The Guidance for Reporting Involvement of Patients and the Public (GRIPP2) was developed to enhance the quality and consistency of PPI reporting. The objective of this systematic review is to identify the frequency and quality of PPI reporting in patient safety (PS) research using the GRIPP2 checklist. METHODS: Searches were performed in Ovid MEDLINE, EMBASE, PsycINFO, and CINAHL from 2018 to December, 2023. Studies on PPI in PS research were included. We included empirical qualitative, quantitative, mixed methods, and case studies. Only articles published in peer-reviewed journals in English were included. The quality of PPI reporting was assessed using the short form of the (GRIPP2-SF) checklist. RESULTS: A total of 8561 studies were retrieved from database searches, updates, and reference checks, of which 82 met the eligibility criteria and were included in this review. Major PS topics were related to medication safety, general PS, and fall prevention. Patient representatives, advocates, patient advisory groups, patients, service users, and health consumers were the most involved. The main involvement across the studies was in commenting on or developing research materials. Only 6.1% (n = 5) of the studies reported PPI as per the GRIPP2 checklist. Regarding the quality of reporting following the GRIPP2-SF criteria, our findings show sub-optimal reporting mainly due to failures in: critically reflecting on PPI in the study; reporting the aim of PPI in the study; and reporting the extent to which PPI influenced the study overall. CONCLUSIONS: Our review shows a low frequency of PPI reporting in PS research using the GRIPP2 checklist. Furthermore, it reveals a sub-optimal quality in PPI reporting following GRIPP2-SF items. Researchers, funders, publishers, and journals need to promote consistent and transparent PPI reporting following internationally developed reporting guidelines such as the GRIPP2. Evidence-based guidelines for reporting PPI should be encouraged and supported as it helps future researchers to plan and report PPI more effectively. TRIAL REGISTRATION: The review protocol is registered with PROSPERO (CRD42023450715).

Improving Palliative Care Research Reporting: A Guide to Reporting Guidelines.

Improving the quality of research reporting is crucial for addressing current challenges in palliative care, with academic journals playing a crucial role in promoting clear and comprehensive reporting through structured guidelines. These guidelines, such as Appraisal of Guidelines, Research, and evaluation, Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials, Case Reports (CARE) guidelines, transparent reporting of evaluations with nonrandomized designs (TREND), transparent reporting of a multivariable prediction model for individual prognosis or diagnosis (TRIPOD), meta-analysis of observational studies in epidemiology (MOOSE) Checklist, methods of researching end-of-life care Statement, Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses, Standards for Quality Improvement Reporting Excellence 2.0, Strengthening the Reporting of Observational Studies in Epidemiology, standard protocol items: recommendations for interventional trials (SPIRIT), template for intervention description and replication (TIDieR) Consolidated Criteria for Reporting Qualitative Research and Standards for Qualitative Research, are instrumental in ensuring transparency by furnishing essential details for comprehending, replicating and applying research findings in clinical decision-making and systematic reviews. The Enhancing the quality and transparency of health research (EQUATOR) network champions trustworthy health research literature globally by advocating for transparent and accurate reporting, thereby enhancing the reliability and utility of research outcomes research outcomes.

Assessing the quality of reporting of studies using Vascular Quality Initiative (VQI) data.

OBJECTIVE: The Society for Vascular Surgery Vascular Quality Initiative (VQI) has become an increasingly popular data source for retrospective observational vascular surgery studies. There are published guidelines on the reporting of data in such studies to promote transparency and rigor, but these have not been used to evaluate studies using VQI data. Our objective was to appraise the methodological reporting quality of studies using VQI data by evaluating their adherence to these guidelines. METHODS: The Society for Vascular Surgery VQI publication repository was queried for all articles published in 2020. The REporting of studies Conducted using Observational Routinely-collected Health Data (RECORD) statement and the Journal of American Medical Association-Surgical Section (JAMA-Surgery) checklist were utilized to assess the quality of each article's reporting. Five and three items from the RECORD statement and JAMA-Surgery checklist were excluded, respectively, because they were either inapplicable or nonassessable. Journal impact factor (IF) was queried for each article to elucidate any difference in reporting standards between high and low IF journals. RESULTS: Ninety studies were identified and analyzed. The median score on the RECORD checklist was 6 (of 8). The most commonly missed item was discussing data cleaning methods (93% missed). The median score on the JAMA-Surgery checklist was 3 (of 7). The most commonly missed items were the identification of competing risks (98% missed), the use of a flow chart to clearly define sample exclusion and inclusion criteria (84% missed), and the inclusion of a solid research question and hypothesis (81% missed). There were no differences in JAMA-Surgery checklist or RECORD statement median scores among studies published in low vs high IF journals. CONCLUSIONS: Studies using VQI data demonstrate a poor to moderate adherence to reporting standards. Key areas for improvement in research reporting include articulating a clear hypothesis, using flow charts to clearly define inclusion and exclusion criteria, identifying competing risks, and discussing data cleaning methods. Additionally, future efforts should center on creating tailored instruments to better guide reporting in studies using VQI data.

PRIASE 2021 guidelines for reporting animal studies in Endodontology: explanation and elaboration.

Laws and ethics require that before conducting human clinical trials, a new material, device or drug may have to undergo testing in animals in order to minimize health risks to humans, unless suitable supporting grandfather data already exist. The Preferred Reporting Items for Animal Studies in Endodontology (PRIASE) 2021 guidelines were developed exclusively for the specialty of Endodontology by integrating and adapting the ARRIVE (Animals in Research: Reporting In Vivo Experiments) guidelines and the Clinical and Laboratory Images in Publications (CLIP) principles using a validated consensus-based methodology. Implementation of the PRIASE 2021 guidelines will reduce potential sources of bias and thus improve the quality, accuracy, reproducibility, completeness and transparency of reports describing animal studies in Endodontology. The PRIASE 2021 guidelines consist of a checklist with 11 domains and 43 individual items and a flowchart. The aim of the current document is to provide an explanation for each item in the PRIASE 2021 checklist and flowchart and is supplemented with examples from the literature in order for readers to understand their significance and to provide usage guidance. A link to the PRIASE 2021 explanation and elaboration document and PRIASE 2021 checklist and flowchart is available on the Preferred Reporting Items for study Designs in Endodontology (PRIDE) website (http://pride-endodonticguidelines.org/priase/).

Standards for preclinical research and publications in developmental anaesthetic neurotoxicity: expert opinion statement from the SmartTots preclinical working group.

In March 2019, SmartTots, a public-private partnership between the US Food and Drug Administration and the International Anesthesia Research Society, hosted a meeting attended by research experts, anaesthesia journal editors, and government agency representatives to discuss the continued need for rigorous preclinical research and the importance of establishing reporting standards for the field of anaesthetic perinatal neurotoxicity. This group affirmed the importance of preclinical research in the field, and welcomed novel and mechanistic approaches to answer some of the field's largest questions. The attendees concluded that summarising the benefits and disadvantages of specific model systems, and providing guidance for reporting results, would be helpful for designing new experiments and interpreting results across laboratories. This expert opinion report is a summary of these discussions, and includes a focused review of current animal models and reporting standards for the field of perinatal anaesthetic neurotoxicity. This will serve as a practical guide and road map for novel and rigorous experimental work.

Abstracts of published randomised controlled trials in Endodontics: Reporting quality and spin.

AIMS: To assess the reporting quality of recently published randomised controlled trial (RCT) abstracts in Endodontics, to investigate factors associated with reporting quality, and to evaluate the existence and characteristics of spin. Spin refers to reporting strategies that distort study results and misguide readers. METHODOLOGY: The PubMed database was searched to identify abstracts of RCTs in the field of Endodontics published during 2017 to 2018. Two authors assessed the reporting quality of each included abstract using the original 16-item CONSORT for Abstracts checklist, with the overall quality score (OQS, range: 0 to 16) being the primary outcome measure. For each individual item, a score of '1' was given if it was described adequately, and '0' if the description was inadequate. Linear regression analyses were conducted to identify factors associated with reporting quality. For the evaluation of spin, two authors selected parallel-group RCTs with a nonsignificant primary outcome from the included abstracts, and evaluated independently the existence and characteristics of spin among these abstracts. RESULTS: A total of 162 abstracts were included for assessment of reporting, for which the mean OQS was 3.97 (SD, 1.30; 95 % CI, 3.77 to 4.17). According to multivariable analysis, origin from Europe (P=0.001) and reporting of the exact P value (P=0.020) were significantly associated with better reporting. Forty abstracts with statistically nonsignificant results for their primary outcome were included for spin evaluation, among which 34 (85.0%) had at least one type of spin. Thirty-two abstracts (94.1%) had spin in their conclusions section, and six abstracts (17.6%) had spin in the results section. CONCLUSIONS: The reporting quality of RCT abstracts in Endodontics needs to be improved. The occurrence rate of spin in the sample of abstracts of RCTs in the field of Endodontics was high. Relevant stakeholders are recommended to be familiar with the CONSORT for Abstracts guideline and develop active strategies to ensure its implementation.

A Future for Observational Epidemiology: Clarity, Credibility, Transparency.

Observational studies are ambiguous, difficult, and necessary for epidemiology. Presently, there are concerns that the evidence produced by most observational studies in epidemiology is not credible and contributes to research waste. I argue that observational epidemiology could be improved by focusing greater attention on 1) defining questions that make clear whether the inferential goal is descriptive or causal; 2) greater utilization of quantitative bias analysis and alternative research designs that aim to decrease the strength of assumptions needed to estimate causal effects; and 3) promoting, experimenting with, and perhaps institutionalizing both reproducible research standards and replication studies to evaluate the fragility of study findings in epidemiology. Greater clarity, credibility, and transparency in observational epidemiology will help to provide reliable evidence that can serve as a basis for making decisions about clinical or population-health interventions.

Ecological fallacy as a novel risk factor for poor translation in neuroscience research: A systematic review and simulation study.

BACKGROUND: Translational neuroscience is largely concerned with establishing causal links between biological processes and functional outcomes. Exciting new methods have emerged and top-tier biomedical journals are placing increasingly high demand for experiments that link outcomes. One pitfall to making these connections is the "ecological fallacy"-establishing a relationship between outcomes based on aggregate (averaged) results (a distinct issue from correlation vs causation). METHODS: To showcase the ecological fallacy, we first used simulated data to define and demonstrate the problem. Next, we performed a systematic review to determine the prevalence of the fallacy in top-tier biomedical journals (Science, Nature Medicine, Neuron, Nature, Nature Neuroscience, Cell). Based on our own research interests and specializations, we specifically focused on recent publications in the area of spinal cord injury and regenerative medicine. RESULTS: Of the articles reviewed which examined a relationship between central nervous system regeneration and a behavioural outcome, 100% (21/21) were subject to possible ecological fallacy. CONCLUSIONS: Ecological fallacy is highly prevalent in neuroscience research and could partially account for translation failures in this field. Reporting guidelines for in vivo experiments should include subject-level correlation analyses for the primary outcomes.

Consolidated criteria for strengthening reporting of health research involving indigenous peoples: the CONSIDER statement.

BACKGROUND: Research reporting guidelines are increasingly commonplace and shown to improve the quality of published health research and health outcomes. Despite severe health inequities among Indigenous Peoples and the potential for research to address the causes, there is an extended legacy of health research exploiting Indigenous Peoples. This paper describes the development of the CONSolIDated critERtia for strengthening the reporting of health research involving Indigenous Peoples (CONSIDER) statement. METHODS: A collaborative prioritization process was conducted based on national and international statements and guidelines about Indigenous health research from the following nations (Peoples): Australia (Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islanders), Canada (First Nations Peoples, Métis), Hawaii (Native Hawaiian), New Zealand (Maori), Taiwan (Taiwan Indigenous Tribes), United States of America (First Nations Peoples) and Northern Scandinavian countries (Sami). A review of seven research guidelines was completed, and meta-synthesis was used to construct a reporting guideline checklist for transparent and comprehensive reporting of research involving Indigenous Peoples. RESULTS: A list of 88 possible checklist items was generated, reconciled, and categorized. Eight research domains and 17 criteria for the reporting of research involving Indigenous Peoples were identified. The research reporting domains were: (i) governance; (ii) relationships; (iii) prioritization; (iv) methodologies; (v) participation; (vi) capacity; (vii) analysis and findings; and (viii) dissemination. CONCLUSIONS: The CONSIDER statement is a collaborative synthesis and prioritization of national and international research statements and guidelines. The CONSIDER statement provides a checklist for the reporting of health research involving Indigenous peoples to strengthen research praxis and advance Indigenous health outcomes.

Preferred Reporting Items for RAndomized Trials in Endodontics (PRIRATE) guidelines: a development protocol.

Randomized clinical trials are acknowledged as the most appropriate methodology for demonstrating the efficacy or effectiveness of one intervention as opposed to another and thus play a major role in clinical decision-making. However, it is recognized that despite the existence of various guidelines, for example, the Consolidated Standards for Reporting Trials (CONSORT) statement, the quality of manuscripts describing randomized trials is often suboptimal. The current project aims to develop and disseminate new guidelines, Preferred Reporting Items for RAndomized Trials in Endodontics (PRIRATE), to improve the planning and reporting quality of randomized trials in the field of Endodontics. The project leads (VN, PD) designed a robust process to develop the PRIRATE guidelines. At first, a steering committee of eight members, including the project leads, was formed. Thereafter, a five-stage consensus process will be followed: initial steps, pre-meeting activities, face-to-face consensus meeting, post-meeting activities and post-publication activities. The steering committee will develop the first draft of the PRIRATE guidelines by identifying relevant and important items from various sources including the CONSORT guidelines and the Clinical and Laboratory Images in Publications (CLIP) principles. This will be followed by the establishment of a PRIRATE Delphi Group (PDG) consisting of 30 members. The individual items of the first draft of the PRIRATE guidelines developed by the steering committee will be evaluated and scored on a 9-point Likert scale by the PDG members. Items with a score of seven and above by more than 70% of PDG members will be included in the second draft of the guidelines, and the Delphi process will be repeated until each item fulfils the set conditions. After obtaining consensus from the PDG, the PRIRATE guidelines will be discussed by 20 selected individuals within a PRIRATE Face-to-face Consensus Meeting Group (PFCMG) to arrive at a final consensus. The final PRIRATE guidelines will be accompanied with an explanation and elaboration document developed by the steering committee and approved by six members, three from the PDG and three from the PFCMG. The PRIRATE guidelines will be published in journals and actively disseminated to educational institutions, national and international academic societies and presented at scientific meetings. The steering committee will periodically revise and update the PRIRATE guidelines based on feedback from stakeholders.

Guidelines for reporting the quality of clinical case reports in Endodontics: a development protocol.

Case reports are used to communicate interesting, new or rare condition/s, innovative treatment approaches or novel techniques. Apart from informing readers, such information has the potential to contribute towards further scientific studies and the development of newer management modalities. In that context, it is important that case reports are presented accurately and deliver all the necessary and pertinent information to the reader. Reporting guidelines are used to inform authors of the quality standards required to ensure their manuscripts are accurate, complete and transparent. The aim of this project is to develop and disseminate new guidelines - Preferred Reporting Items for Case reports in Endodontics (PRICE). The primary aim is to aid authors when constructing case reports in the field of Endodontics to ensure the highest possible reporting standards are adopted. The project leaders (PD and VN) formed a steering committee comprising six additional members. Subsequently, a five-phase consensus process will be used. The steering committee will develop the PRICE guidelines (PRICE checklist and flow chart) by identifying relevant items (quality standards) derived from the CAse REport guidelines and Clinical and Laboratory Images in Publications principles, focussing on the content of case reports. Following this, the steering committee will identify a PRICE Delphi Group (PDG) consisting of 30 members including academicians, practitioners, and members of the public. The individual items (components) of the PRICE checklist will be evaluated by the PDG based on a 9-point Likert scale. Only items scored between 7 and 9 by 70% or more members will be included in the draft checklist. The Delphi process will be continued until a consensus is reached and a final set of items agreed by the PDG members. Following this, a PRICE Face-to-Face meeting group (PFMG) will be formed with 20 members to achieve a final consensus. The final consensus-based checklist and flow chart will be evaluated and approved by selected members of the PDG and PFMG. The approved PRICE guidelines will be published in relevant journals and disseminated via contacts in academic institutions and national endodontic societies, as well as being presented at scientific/clinical meetings.

Preferred Reporting Items for Animal Studies in Endodontology: a development protocol.

The regulated use of animals in endodontic research is often necessary to investigate the biological mechanisms of endodontic diseases and to measure the preclinical efficacy, biocompatibility, toxicology and safety of new treatments, biomaterials, sealers, drugs, disinfectants, irrigants, devices and instruments. Animal testing is most crucial in situations when research on humans is not ethical, practical or has unknown health risks. Currently, there is a wide variability in the quality of manuscripts that report the results of animal studies. Towards the goal of improving the quality of publications, guidelines for preventing disability, pain, and suffering to animals, and enhanced reporting requirements for animal research have been developed. These guidelines are referred to as Animals in Research: Reporting In Vivo Experiments (ARRIVE). Henceforth, causing any form of animal suffering for research purposes is not acceptable and cannot be justified under any circumstances. The present report describes a protocol for the development of welfare and reporting guidelines for animal studies conducted in the specialty of Endodontology: the Preferred Reporting Items for Animal Studies in Endodontology (PRIASE) guidelines. The PRIASE guidelines will be developed by adapting and modifying the ARRIVE guidelines and the Clinical and Laboratory Images in Publication (CLIP) principles. The development of the new PRIASE guidelines will include a five-step consensus process. An initial draft of the PRIASE guidelines will be developed by a steering committee. Each item in the draft guidelines will then be evaluated by members of a PRIASE Delphi Group (PDG) for its clarity using a dichotomous scale (yes or no) and suitability for its inclusion using a 9-point Likert scale. The online surveys will continue until each item achieves this standard, and a set of items are agreed for further analysis by a PRIASE Face-to-face Consensus Meeting Group (PFCMG). Following the consensus meeting, the steering committee will finalize and confirm the PRIASE guidelines taking into account the responses and comments of the PFCMG. The PRIASE guidelines will be published and disseminated internationally and updated periodically based on feedback from stakeholders.

Getting messier with TIDieR: embracing context and complexity in intervention reporting.

BACKGROUND: The Template for Intervention Description and Replication (TIDieR) checklist and guide was developed by an international team of experts to promote full and accurate description of trial interventions. It is now widely used in health research. The aim of this paper is to describe the experience of using TIDieR outside of trials, in a range of applied health research contexts, and make recommendations on its usefulness in such settings. MAIN BODY: We used the TIDieR template for intervention description in six applied health research projects. The six cases comprise a diverse sample in terms of clinical problems, population, settings, stage of intervention development and whether the intervention was led by researchers or the service deliverers. There was also variation in how the TIDieR description was produced in terms of contributors and time point in the project. Researchers involved in the six cases met in two workshops to identify issues and themes arising from their experience of using TIDieR. We identified four themes which capture the difficulties or complexities of using TIDieR in applied health research: (i) fidelity and adaptation: all aspects of an intervention can change over time; (ii) voice: the importance of clarity on whose voice the TIDieR description represents; (iii) communication beyond the immediate context: the usefulness of TIDieR for wider dissemination and sharing; (iv) the use of TIDieR as a research tool. CONCLUSION: We found TIDieR to be a useful tool for applied research outside the context of clinical trials and we suggest four revisions or additions to the original TIDieR which would enable it to better capture these complexities in applied health research: An additional item, 'voice' conveys who was involved in preparing the TIDieR template, such as researchers, service users or service deliverers. An additional item, 'stage of implementation' conveys what stage the intervention has reached, using a continuum of implementation research suggested by the World Health Organisation. A new column, 'modification' reminds authors to describe modifications to any item in the checklist. An extension of the 'how well' item encourages researchers to describe how contextual factors affected intervention delivery.

Characteristics and knowledge synthesis approach for 456 network meta-analyses: a scoping review.

BACKGROUND: Network meta-analysis (NMA) has become a popular method to compare more than two treatments. This scoping review aimed to explore the characteristics and methodological quality of knowledge synthesis approaches underlying the NMA process. We also aimed to assess the statistical methods applied using the Analysis subdomain of the ISPOR checklist. METHODS: Comprehensive literature searches were conducted in MEDLINE, PubMed, EMBASE, and Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews from inception until April 14, 2015. References of relevant reviews were scanned. Eligible studies compared at least four different interventions from randomised controlled trials with an appropriate NMA approach. Two reviewers independently performed study selection and data abstraction of included articles. All discrepancies between reviewers were resolved by a third reviewer. Data analysis involved quantitative (frequencies) and qualitative (content analysis) methods. Quality was evaluated using the AMSTAR tool for the conduct of knowledge synthesis and the ISPOR tool for statistical analysis. RESULTS: After screening 3538 citations and 877 full-text papers, 456 NMAs were included. These were published between 1997 and 2015, with 95% published after 2006. Most were conducted in Europe (51%) or North America (31%), and approximately one-third reported public sources of funding. Overall, 84% searched two or more electronic databases, 62% searched for grey literature, 58% performed duplicate study selection and data abstraction (independently), and 62% assessed risk of bias. Seventy-eight (17%) NMAs relied on previously conducted systematic reviews to obtain studies for inclusion in their NMA. Based on the AMSTAR tool, almost half of the NMAs incorporated quality appraisal results to formulate conclusions, 36% assessed publication bias, and 16% reported the source of funding. Based on the ISPOR tool, half of the NMAs did not report if an assessment for consistency was conducted or whether they accounted for inconsistency when present. Only 13% reported heterogeneity assumptions for the random-effects model. CONCLUSIONS: The knowledge synthesis methods and analytical process for NMAs are poorly reported and need improvement.

The development and validation of an instrument to measure the quality of health research reports in the lay media.

BACKGROUND: The media serves as an important link between medical research, as reported in scholarly sources, and the public and has the potential to act as a powerful tool to improve public health. However, concerns about the reliability of health research reports have been raised. Tools to monitor the quality of health research reporting in the media are needed to identify areas of weakness in health research reporting and to subsequently work towards the efficient use of the lay media as a public health tool through which the public's health behaviors can be improved. METHODS: We developed the Quality Index for health-related Media Reports (QIMR) as a tool to monitor the quality of health research reports in the lay media. The tool was developed according to themes generated from interviews with health journalists and researchers. Item and domain characteristics and scale reliability were assessed. The scale was correlated with a global quality assessment score and media report word count to provide evidence towards its construct validity. RESULTS: The items and domains of the QIMR demonstrated acceptable validity and reliability. Items from the 'validity' domain were negatively skewed, suggesting possible floor effect. These items were not eliminated due to acceptable content and face validity. QIMR total scores produced a strong correlation with raters' global assessment and a moderate correlation with media report word count, providing evidence towards the construct validity of the instrument. CONCLUSIONS: The results of this investigation indicate that QIMR can adequately measure the quality of health research reports, with acceptable reliability and validity.

Inappropriate statistical method in a parallel-group randomized controlled trial results in unsubstantiated conclusions.

The conclusions of Cassani et al. in the January 2015 issue of Nutrition Journal (doi: 10.1186/1475-2891-14-5 ) cannot be substantiated by the analysis reported nor by the data themselves. The authors ascribed the observed decrease in inflammatory markers to the components of flaxseed and based their conclusions on within-group comparisons made between the final and the baseline measurements separately in each arm of the randomized controlled trial. However, this is an improper approach and the conclusions of the paper are invalid. A correct analysis of the data shows no such effects.

Developing reporting checklist items from systematic review findings: a roadmap and lessons to be learned from ACCORD.

OBJECTIVES: To demonstrate how researchers can identify and translate reporting gaps from a systematic review into checklist items for reporting guidelines. STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING: Good quality research reporting ensures transparency, reproducibility, and utility, facilitated by reporting guidelines. Conducting a systematic review is an essential step in the development of these guidelines. The Enhancing the QUAlity and Transparency Of health Research (EQUATOR) Network's toolkit (2010) assists researchers in this process and is due for an update to address current gaps and evolving research methods. One significant gap is the translation of systematic review findings into checklist items. Reflecting on our experience developing the ACcurate Consensus Reporting Document, we illustrate this translation process aiming to empower researchers developing reporting guidelines to address potential biases and promote transparency. We highlight the challenges faced and how they were addressed. RESULTS: The systematic review search process was iterative, involving multiple adjustments to balance precision and sensitivity. Excessively stringent exclusion criteria may lead to missed valuable insights, especially when studies offer relevant content. An information specialist was invaluable in developing the search strategy. Key lessons learned include the necessity of maintaining flexibility and openness during data extraction, continuous adaptation based on panelist feedback, and promoting clear communication through understandable language. These principles can guide the development of future reporting guidelines and the updating of the EQUATOR toolkit, promoting transparency and robustness in research reporting. CONCLUSION: Maintaining flexibility, capturing evolving insights, clear communication, and accommodating changes in research and technologies are key to translating systematic review findings into effective reporting checklists.

Uncovering gaps in GRADE reporting of Eastern Association for the Surgery of Trauma (EAST) guidelines.

OBJECTIVES: To formally evaluate the uptake and reporting of the Grading of Recommendation Assessments, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) approach in clinical practice guidelines (CPGs) developed by the Eastern Association for the Surgery of Trauma (EAST). STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING: Based on an a priori, written protocol, we developed a dedicated data abstraction form that included the six suggested criteria for using and applying GRADE. By searching the EAST website, we identified all EAST guidelines that referenced the use of GRADE. All steps of the data abstraction process were completed independently and in duplicate by two members of the research team. RESULTS: We identified a total of 48 CPGs that used GRADE. Trauma and violence prevention (n = 11; 23.9%) was the most common topic. The median number of patient/population, intervention, comparison, and outcomes (PICO) questions addressed was 3 (interquartile range: 2; 4) with a median of 2.5 (interquartile range: 1; 4) critical outcomes. A conditional/weak recommendation was provided for n = 79 (51.4%) PICOs, whereas a strong recommendation was provided for 33 PICOs (23.9%). For 22 PICOs (15.9%), no recommendation was made. Nearly all guideline documents provided search dates (n = 44; 95.7%) and a Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses flow diagram (n = 44; 95.7%). Most described categories for rating down (n = 35; 76.1%). GRADE decision-making domains related to the ratio of benefits to harms, values and preferences, and resource utilization were referenced by 43.5% (n = 20), 43.5% (n = 20), and 30.4% (n = 14) of CPGs, respectively. For nearly half of PICO questions (n = 59; 44.2%) authors did not provide an evidence profile or summary of findings table. Comparing time periods from 2014-2018 to 2019-2022, the proportion of recommendations with an overall certainty of evidence increased (52.4% vs 83.9%; P < 0.001). CONCLUSION: EAST has successfully adopted GRADE to develop many trauma-related guidelines, each addressing a finite number of focused clinical questions based on systematic reviews conducted in-house. Overall reporting improved over time. There is for improvement when it comes to consistent provision of an overall certainty of evidence, the reporting of the evidence to decision-making process, and the justification of strong recommendations based on low/very low certainty evidence.

Comprehensive Criteria for Reporting Qualitative Research (CCQR): Reporting Guideline for Global Health Qualitative Research Methods.

Globally, the demand for qualitative research has risen, driven by the health sector's need for in-depth investigation of complex issues behind any phenomenon that may be inadequately comprehended and that other research methods cannot explore, uncover, or describe. The authors aimed to improve the accessibility and comprehensiveness of reporting guidelines for qualitative research. A comprehensive review of scientific articles was conducted on PubMed, Medline, CINAHL, and Embase, and it retrieved 1989 articles plus 13 more articles through the snowball method. After screening, 17 key articles were identified, which led to the development of Comprehensive Criteria for Reporting Qualitative Research that comprises 14 categories, offering key elements in an organized table. This novel guideline complements the two widely used guidelines, Consolidated Criteria for Reporting Qualitative Research and Standards for Reporting Qualitative Research, by including additional aspects like objectives, existing knowledge, rationale behind methodologies, conclusions, recommendations, and reference citations. The study responds to the rising need for improved qualitative research reporting guidelines in global health.

The CARE guidelines: consensus-based clinical case reporting guideline development.

BACKGROUND: A case report is a narrative that describes, for medical, scientific, or educational purposes, a medical problem experienced by one or more patients. Case reports written without guidance from reporting standards are insufficiently rigorous to guide clinical practice or to inform clinical study design. OBJECTIVE: Develop, disseminate, and implement systematic reporting guidelines for case reports. METHODS: We used a three-phase consensus process consisting of (1) pre-meeting literature review and interviews to generate items for the reporting guidelines, (2) a face-to-face consensus meeting to draft the reporting guidelines, and (3) post-meeting feedback, review, and pilot testing, followed by finalization of the case report guidelines. RESULTS: This consensus process involved 27 participants and resulted in a 13-item checklist-a reporting guideline for case reports. The primary items of the checklist are title, key words, abstract, introduction, patient information, clinical findings, timeline, diagnostic assessment, therapeutic interventions, follow-up and outcomes, discussion, patient perspective, and informed consent. CONCLUSIONS: We believe the implementation of the CARE (CAse REport) guidelines by medical journals will improve the completeness and transparency of published case reports and that the systematic aggregation of information from case reports will inform clinical study design, provide early signals of effectiveness and harms, and improve healthcare delivery.