RESUMEN
There have been reports of poor-quality research during the COVID-19 pandemic. This registered report assessed design characteristics of registered clinical trials for COVID-19 compared to non-COVID-19 trials to empirically explore the design of clinical research during a pandemic and how it compares to research conducted in non-pandemic times. We did a retrospective cohort study with a 1 : 1 ratio of interventional COVID-19 registrations to non-COVID-19 registrations, with four trial design outcomes: use of control arm, randomization, blinding and prospective registration. Logistic regression was used to estimate the odds ratio of investigating COVID-19 versus not COVID-19 and estimate direct and total effects of investigating COVID-19 for each outcome. The primary analysis showed a positive direct and total effect of COVID-19 on the use of control arms and randomization. It showed a negative direct effect of COVID-19 on blinding but no evidence of a total effect. There was no evidence of an effect on prospective registration. Taken together with secondary and sensitivity analyses, our findings are inconclusive but point towards a higher prevalence of key design characteristics in COVID-19 trials versus controls. The findings do not support much existing COVID-19 research quality literature, which generally suggests that COVID-19 led to a reduction in quality. Limitations included some data quality issues, minor deviations from the pre-registered plan and the fact that trial registrations were analysed which may not accurately reflect study design and conduct. Following in-principle acceptance, the approved stage 1 version of this manuscript was pre-registered on the Open Science Framework at https://doi.org/10.17605/OSF.IO/5YAEB. This pre-registration was performed prior to data analysis.
RESUMEN
There have been reports of poor-quality research during the COVID-19 pandemic. This registered report assessed design characteristics of registered clinical trials for COVID-19 compared to non-COVID-19 trials to empirically explore the design of clinical research during a pandemic and how it compares to research conducted in non-pandemic times. We did a retrospective cohort study with a 1 : 1 ratio of interventional COVID-19 registrations to non-COVID-19 registrations, with four trial design outcomes: use of control arm, randomization, blinding and prospective registration. Logistic regression was used to estimate the odds ratio of investigating COVID-19 versus not COVID-19 and estimate direct and total effects of investigating COVID-19 for each outcome. The primary analysis showed a positive direct and total effect of COVID-19 on the use of control arms and randomization. It showed a negative direct effect of COVID-19 on blinding but no evidence of a total effect. There was no evidence of an effect on prospective registration. Taken together with secondary and sensitivity analyses, our findings are inconclusive but point towards a higher prevalence of key design characteristics in COVID-19 trials versus controls. The findings do not support much existing COVID-19 research quality literature, which generally suggests that COVID-19 led to a reduction in quality. Limitations included some data quality issues, minor deviations from the pre-registered plan and the fact that trial registrations were analysed which may not accurately reflect study design and conduct. Following in-principle acceptance, the approved stage 1 version of this manuscript was pre-registered on the Open Science Framework at https://doi.org/10.17605/OSF.IO/5YAEB. This pre-registration was performed prior to data analysis.
RESUMEN
Introduction This study aimed to estimate the causal effect of face-to-face learning on student performance in anatomy, compared to online learning, by analysing examination marks under a causal structure. Methods We specified a causal graph to indicate how the mode of learning affected student performance. We sampled purposively to obtain end-semester examination marks of undergraduate and postgraduate students who learned using face-to-face (pre-COVID, 2019) or online modes (post-COVID, 2020). The analysis was informed by the causal graph. Marks were compared using linear regression, and sensitivity analyses were conducted to assess if effects were robust to unmeasured confounding. Results On average, face-to-face learning improved student performance in the end-semester examination in undergraduate students (gain of mean 8.3%, 95% CI 3.3 to 13.4%;E-value 2.77, lower limit of 95% CI 1.80) but lowered performance in postgraduate students (loss of 8.1%, 95% CI 3.6 to 12.6%;E-value 2.89, lower limit of 95% CI 1.88), compared to online learning. Discussion Under the assumed causal graph, we found that compared to online learning, face-to-face learning improved student performance in the end-semester examination in undergraduate students, but worsened student performance in postgraduate students. These findings suggest that different modes of learning may suit different types of students. Importantly, this is the first attempt to estimate causal effects of the mode of learning on student performance under a causal structure. This approach makes our assumptions transparent, informs data analysis, and is recommended when using observational data to make causal inferences.
RESUMEN
Objectives: To audit the transparent and open science standards of health and medical sciences journal policies and explore the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic. Design: Repeat cross-sectional study. Setting: 19 journals listed in Google Scholar's Top Publications for health and medical sciences. Participants: Blood, Cell, Circulation, European Heart Journal, Gastroenterology, Journal of Clinical Oncology, Journal of the American College of Cardiology, Nature Genetics, Nature Medicine, Nature Neuroscience, Neuron, PLoS ONE, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, Science Translational Medicine, The British Medical Journal, The Journal of the American Medical Association, The Lancet, The Lancet Oncology, and The New England Journal of Medicine. Main outcome measures: We used the Transparency and Openness Promotion (TOP) guideline and the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors (ICMJE) requirements for disclosing conflicts of interest (COIs) to evaluate journals standards. Results: TOP scores slightly improved during the COVID-19 pandemic, from a median of 5 (IQR: 2-12.5) out of a possible 24 points in February 2020 to 7 (IQR: 4-12) in May 2021, but overall, scores were very low at both time points. Journal policies scored highest for their adherence to data transparency and scored lowest for preregistration of study protocols and analysis plans and the submission of replication studies. Most journals fulfilled all ICMJE provisions for reporting COIs before (84%; n = 16) and during (95%; n = 18) the COVID-19 pandemic. Conclusions: The COVID-19 pandemic has highlighted the importance of practising open science. However, requirements for open science practices in audited policies were overall low, which may impede progress in health and medical research. As key stakeholders in disseminating research, journals should promote a research culture of greater transparency and more robust open science practices.
RESUMEN
BACKGROUND: Despite well-established benefits of physical activity for knee osteoarthritis (OA), nine of ten people with knee OA are inactive. People with knee OA who are inactive often believe that physical activity is dangerous, fearing that it will further damage their joint(s). Such unhelpful beliefs can negatively influence physical activity levels. We aim to evaluate the clinical- and cost-effectiveness of integrating physiotherapist-delivered pain science education (PSE), an evidence-based conceptual change intervention targeting unhelpful pain beliefs by increasing pain knowledge, with an individualised walking, strengthening, and general education program. METHODS: Two-arm, parallel-design, multicentre randomised controlled trial involving 198 people aged ≥50 years with painful knee OA who do not meet physical activity guideline recommendations or walk regularly for exercise. Both groups receive an individualised physiotherapist-led walking, strengthening, and OA/activity education program via 4x weekly in-person treatment sessions, followed by 4 weeks of at-home activities (weekly check-in via telehealth), with follow-up sessions at 3 months (telehealth) and 5 and 9 months (in-person). The EPIPHA-KNEE group also receives contemporary PSE about OA/pain and activity, embedded into all aspects of the intervention. Outcomes are assessed at baseline, 12 weeks, 6 and 12 months. Primary outcomes are physical activity level (step count; wrist-based accelerometry) and self-reported knee symptoms (WOMAC Total score) at 12 months. Secondary outcomes are quality of life, pain intensity, global rating of change, self-efficacy, pain catastrophising, depression, anxiety, stress, fear of movement, knee awareness, OA/activity conceptualisation, and self-regulated learning ability. Additional measures include adherence, adverse events, blinding success, COVID-19 impact on activity, intention to exercise, treatment expectancy/perceived credibility, implicit movement/environmental bias, implicit motor imagery, two-point discrimination, and pain sensitivity to activity. Cost-utility analysis of the EPIPHA-KNEE intervention will be undertaken, in addition to evaluation of cost-effectiveness in the context of primary trial outcomes. DISCUSSION: We will determine whether the integration of PSE into an individualised OA education, walking, and strengthening program is more effective than receiving the individualised program alone. Findings will inform the development and implementation of future delivery of PSE as part of best practice for people with knee OA. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Australian New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry: ACTRN12620001041943 (13/10/2020).