Mind the gap: Data availability, accessibility, transparency, and credibility during the COVID-19 pandemic, an international comparative appraisal.

Data transparency has played a key role in this pandemic. The aim of this paper is to map COVID-19 data availability and accessibility, and to rate their transparency and credibility in selected countries, by the source of information. This is used to identify knowledge gaps, and to analyse policy implications. The availability of a number of COVID-19 metrics (incidence, mortality, number of people tested, test positive rate, number of patients hospitalised, number of patients discharged, the proportion of population who received at least one vaccine, the proportion of population fully vaccinated) was ascertained from selected countries for the full population, and for few of stratification variables (age, sex, ethnicity, socio-economic status) and subgroups (residents in nursing homes, inmates, students, healthcare and social workers, and residents in refugee camps). Nine countries were included: Bangladesh, Indonesia, Iran, Nigeria, Turkey, Panama, Greece, the UK, and the Netherlands. All countries reported periodically most of COVID-19 metrics on the total population. Data were more frequently broken down by age, sex, and region than by ethnic group or socio-economic status. Data on COVID-19 is partially available for special groups. This exercise highlighted the importance of a transparent and detailed reporting of COVID-19 related variables. The more data is publicly available the more transparency, accountability, and democratisation of the research process is enabled, allowing a sound evidence-based analysis of the consequences of health policies.

Growth Hormone Administration to Improve Reproductive Outcomes in Women with Recurrent Implantation Failure (RIF): a Systematic Review.

Recurrent implantation failure (RIF) has been used to describe embryos' failure to implant following IVF, arising concerns about the importance of its treatment. Growth hormone (GH) has been studied as one of the possible co-interventions. Our updated review evaluated GH intervention vs. no intervention from randomized controlled trials (RCTs) in RIF patients. Electronic searches on The Menstrual Disorders and Subfertility Group (MDSG), The Cochrane Central Register for Clinical Trials, PubMed MEDLINE, EMBASE, PsycINFO, CINAHL, LILACS, and Google Scholar up to August 2021 identified 2 RCTs and compiled with the above inclusion criteria. The risk of bias (ROB) and the quality of evidence were assessed according to the Cochrane Collaboration tool and GRADE group guidelines. Meta-analysis found higher rates of clinical pregnancy (OR: 4.97 CI 95% 2.05 to 12.05), live birth (OR: 5.13 CI 95% 2.03 to 12.91), and implantation (OR: 3.88 CI 95% 1.91 to 7.88) when compared GH to no intervention; as well as an increased endometrial thickness (mean difference: 1.14 CI 95% -0.0 to 2.28). However, this review cannot provide a strong recommendation due to the quality of evidence rated as "very low quality of evidence" in all the outcomes for reasons such as methodology issues, heterogeneity, intervention regimen, and limited sample sizes with large confidence intervals and a low number of events. We emphasize the importance of upcoming high-quality research and the need for consensus concepts in RIF patients, which may be a minority; it is still one of the highest impacts on life quality.

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.

Lectura crítica del estudio "Prescripción de opioides de acción prolongada y mortalidad en pacientes con dolor crónico no oncológico" / Critical appraisal of "Prescription of long-acting opioids and mortality in patients with chronic nonmalignant pain"

These remarks represent a critical appraisal of the article by Ray et al. The approach is based on the reading questions for cohort studies developed by the CASPe (Critical Appraisal Skills Programme Spanish) group discussed in the text and an analysis of the authors' methodological strategies and analytical techniques.