Assessment of transparency indicators in space medicine.

Space medicine is a vital discipline with often time-intensive and costly projects and constrained opportunities for studying various elements such as space missions, astronauts, and simulated environments. Moreover, private interests gain increasing influence in this discipline. In scientific disciplines with these features, transparent and rigorous methods are essential. Here, we undertook an evaluation of transparency indicators in publications within the field of space medicine. A meta-epidemiological assessment of PubMed Central Open Access (PMC OA) eligible articles within the field of space medicine was performed for prevalence of code sharing, data sharing, pre-registration, conflicts of interest, and funding. Text mining was performed with the rtransparent text mining algorithms with manual validation of 200 random articles to obtain corrected estimates. Across 1215 included articles, 39 (3%) shared code, 258 (21%) shared data, 10 (1%) were registered, 110 (90%) contained a conflict-of-interest statement, and 1141 (93%) included a funding statement. After manual validation, the corrected estimates for code sharing, data sharing, and registration were 5%, 27%, and 1%, respectively. Data sharing was 32% when limited to original articles and highest in space/parabolic flights (46%). Overall, across space medicine we observed modest rates of data sharing, rare sharing of code and almost non-existent protocol registration. Enhancing transparency in space medicine research is imperative for safeguarding its scientific rigor and reproducibility.

Industry Involvement and Transparency in the Most Cited Clinical Trials, 2019-2022.

Importance: Industry involvement is prominent in influential clinical trials, and commitments to transparency of trials are highly variable. Objective: To evaluate the modes of industry involvement and the transparency features of the most cited recent clinical trials across medicine. Design, Setting, and Participants: This cross-sectional study was a meta-research assessment including randomized and nonrandomized clinical trials published in 2019 or later. The 600 trials of any type of disease or setting that attracted highest number of citations in Scopus as of December 2022 were selected for analysis. Data were analyzed from March to September 2023. Main Outcomes and Measures: Outcomes of interest were industry involvement (sponsor, author, and analyst) and transparency (protocols, statistical analysis plans, and data and code availability). Results: Among 600 trials with a median (IQR) sample size of 415 (124-1046) participants assessed, 409 (68.2%) had industry funding and 303 (50.5%) were exclusively industry-funded. A total of 354 trials (59.0%) had industry authors, with 280 trials (46.6%) involving industry analysts and 125 trials (20.8%) analyzed exclusively by industry analysts. Among industry-funded trials, 364 (89.0%) reached conclusions favoring the sponsor. Most trials (478 trials [79.7%]) provided a data availability statement, and most indicated intention to share the data, but only 16 trials (2.7%) had data already readily available to others. More than three-quarters of trials had full protocols (482 trials [82.0%]) or statistical analysis plans (446 trials [74.3%]) available, but only 27 trials (4.5%) explicitly mentioned sharing analysis code (8 readily available; 19 on request). Randomized trials were more likely than nonrandomized studies to involve only industry analysts (107 trials [22.9%] vs 18 trials [13.6%]; P = .02) and to have full protocols (405 studies [86.5%] vs 87 studies [65.9%]; P < .001) and statistical analysis plans (373 studies [79.7%] vs 73 studies [55.3%]; P < .001) available. Almost all nonrandomized industry-funded studies (90 of 92 studies [97.8%]) favored the sponsor. Among industry-funded trials, exclusive industry funding (odds ratio, 2.9; 95% CI, 1.5-5.4) and industry-affiliated authors (odds ratio, 2.9; 95% CI, 1.5-5.6) were associated with favorable conclusions for the sponsor. Conclusions and Relevance: This cross-sectional study illustrates how industry involvement in the most influential clinical trials was prominent not only for funding, but also authorship and provision of analysts and was associated with conclusions favoring the sponsor. While most influential trials reported that they planned to share data and make both protocols and statistical analysis plans available, raw data and code were rarely readily available.

Who chooses alternative sources of information about childhood vaccinations? A cross-sectional study.

Introduction: Vaccine hesitancy can lead to problematic outcomes in terms of public health. A factor playing a fundamental role in this dynamic is the source of information considered by parents in the decision-making progress that leads to the acceptance or refusal of childhood vaccinations. This study aims to investigate the sources of information considered by the parents of children attending primary and secondary schools in two large Italian cities and to identify predictors that led to choosing alternative sources of information. Methods: An online questionnaire was administered to the parents of students attending elementary, middle, and high schools in Rome and Turin. Two validated tools were used: the Parent Attitudes about Childhood Vaccines Survey and the Vaccine Health Literacy of adults in Italian. Sources of information about vaccinations, trust toward the healthcare system, hesitancy and attitudes about COVID-19 vaccinations, were also investigated. A multivariable logistic regression model was built to identify predictors of the preferred sources of information on the topic. Results: Totally, 2,301 answers to the survey were collected from June to October 2021. Of these, 1,127 came from parents in Rome (49%) and 1,174 from parents based in Turin (51%) with a mean age of 47.7 years (±6.4). The majority of the respondents were mothers (81%), married (73%), with two or more children (70.5%). The multivariable logistic regression model results showed that fathers were more inclined than mothers to use alternative sources of information (OR 1.48, 95% CI 1.29-2.00). Moreover, a higher level of vaccine hesitancy was a strong predictor for choosing alternative sources of information (OR 2.45, 95% CI 1.73-3.46). The HLVa-it scores show that parents with a lower Vaccine Literacy (VL) were more inclined to use alternative sources of information. Discussion: Addressing health literacy issues and changing the official forms of communication could help improving vaccine acceptance. This study shows the importance of rebuilding a trusting relationship between patients and health care providers, which is fundamental in the fight against vaccine hesitancy.