The quality of reporting in case reports of permanent neonatal diabetes mellitus: a cross-sectional study.

BACKGROUND: Although randomized trials and systematic reviews provide the best evidence to guide medical practice, many permanent neonatal diabetes mellitus (PNDM) studies have been published as case reports. However, the quality of these studies has not been assessed. The purpose of this study was to assess the extent to which the current case reports for PNDM comply with the Case Report (CARE) guidelines and to explore variables associated with the reporting. METHOD: Six English and four Chinese databases were searched from their inception to December 2022 for PNDM case reports. The 23 items CARE checklist was used to measure reporting quality. Primary outcome was the adherence rate of each CARE item and second outcome was total reporting score for each included PNDM case report. Linear and logistic regression analyses were used to examine the connection between five pre-specified predictor variables and the reporting quality. The predictor variables were impact factor of the published journal (<3.4 vs. ≥3.4, categorized according to the median), funding (yes vs. no), language (English vs. other language), published journal type (general vs. special) and year of publication (>2013 vs. ≤ 2013). RESULT: In total, 105 PNDM case reports were included in this study. None of the 105 PNDM case reports fulfilled all 23 items of the CARE checklist. The response rate of 11 items were under 50%, including prognostic characteristics presentation (0%), patient perspective interpretation (0%), diagnostic challenges statement (2.9%), clinical course summary (21.0%), diagnostic reasoning statement (22.9%), title identification (24.8%), case presentation (33.3%), disease history description (34.3%), strengths and limitations explanation (41.0%), informed consent statement (45.7%), and lesson elucidation (47.6%). This study identified that the PNDM case reports published in higher impact factor journals were statistically associated with a higher reporting quality. CONCLUSION: The reporting of case reports for PNDM is generally poor. As a result, this information may be misleading to providers, and the clinical applications may be detrimental to patient care. To improve reporting quality, journals should encourage strict adherence to the CARE guidelines.

AAPM Task Group Report 267: A joint AAPM GEC-ESTRO report on biophysical models and tools for the planning and evaluation of brachytherapy.

Brachytherapy utilizes a multitude of radioactive sources and treatment techniques that often exhibit widely different spatial and temporal dose delivery patterns. Biophysical models, capable of modeling the key interacting effects of dose delivery patterns with the underlying cellular processes of the irradiated tissues, can be a potentially useful tool for elucidating the radiobiological effects of complex brachytherapy dose delivery patterns and for comparing their relative clinical effectiveness. While the biophysical models have been used largely in research settings by experts, it has also been used increasingly by clinical medical physicists over the last two decades. A good understanding of the potentials and limitations of the biophysical models and their intended use is critically important in the widespread use of these models. To facilitate meaningful and consistent use of biophysical models in brachytherapy, Task Group 267 (TG-267) was formed jointly with the American Association of Physics in Medicine (AAPM) and The Groupe Européen de Curiethérapie and the European Society for Radiotherapy & Oncology (GEC-ESTRO) to review the existing biophysical models, model parameters, and their use in selected brachytherapy modalities and to develop practice guidelines for clinical medical physicists regarding the selection, use, and interpretation of biophysical models. The report provides an overview of the clinical background and the rationale for the development of biophysical models in radiation oncology and, particularly, in brachytherapy; a summary of the results of literature review of the existing biophysical models that have been used in brachytherapy; a focused discussion of the applications of relevant biophysical models for five selected brachytherapy modalities; and the task group recommendations on the use, reporting, and implementation of biophysical models for brachytherapy treatment planning and evaluation. The report concludes with discussions on the challenges and opportunities in using biophysical models for brachytherapy and with an outlook for future developments.

REporting quality of PilOt randomised controlled trials in surgery (REPORTS): a methodological survey protocol.

INTRODUCTION: The aim of this methodological review is to evaluate the completeness of reporting of surgical pilot and feasibility randomised trials as per the Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials (CONSORT) extension to randomised pilot and feasibility trials. Moreover, we aim to assess for the presence of spin reporting and inconsistency between abstract and main text reporting in surgical pilot and feasibility randomised trials. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: A comprehensive, electronic search strategy will be used to identify studies indexed in Medline, Embase and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) databases. Studies will be included if they are pilot or feasibility randomised trials of surgical interventions. The primary outcome will be overall CONSORT statement extension to randomised pilot and feasibility trials checklist completeness. This will be defined as trials reporting each of the 40 items in the CONSORT statement extension to randomised pilot and feasibility trials checklist. Secondary outcomes will include the reporting of individual studies as per the CONSORT extension to randomised pilot and feasibility trials, the use of spin reporting strategies, trial factors associated with reporting quality and spin strategy use, and consistency between abstract and main text reporting. Poisson and logistic regressions will be performed to explore the association between trial factors and completeness of reporting as measured by the number of reported CONSORT items. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: This is a methodological survey that has been registered a priori on the International Prospective Register for Systematic Reviews (PROSPERO) (CRD42023475512). Local ethics approval is not required. We plan to disseminate study results through peer-reviewed publication and conference presentations.

Co-design workshops to develop evidence synthesis summary formats for use by clinical guideline development groups.

BACKGROUND: Evidence synthesis is used by decision-makers in various ways, such as developing evidence-based recommendations for clinical guidelines. Clinical guideline development groups (GDGs) typically discuss evidence synthesis findings in a multidisciplinary group, including patients, healthcare providers, policymakers, etc. A recent mixed methods systematic review (MMSR) identified no gold standard format for optimally presenting evidence synthesis findings to these groups. However, it provided 94 recommendations to help produce more effective summary formats for general evidence syntheses (e.g., systematic reviews). To refine the MMSR recommendations to create more actionable guidance for summary producers, we aimed to explore these 94 recommendations with participants involved in evidence synthesis and guideline development. METHODS: We conducted a descriptive qualitative study using online focus group workshops in February and March 2023. These groups used a participatory co-design approach with interactive voting activities to identify preferences for a summary format's essential content and style. We created a topic guide focused on recommendations from the MMSR with mixed methods support, ≥ 3 supporting studies, and those prioritized by an expert advisory group via a pragmatic prioritization exercise using the MoSCoW method (Must, Should, Could, and Will not haves). Eligible participants must be/have been involved in GDGs and/or evidence synthesis. Groups were recorded and transcribed. Two independent researchers analyzed transcripts using directed content analysis with 94 pre-defined codes from the MMSR. RESULTS: Thirty individuals participated in six focus groups. We coded 79 of the 94 pre-defined codes. Participants suggested a "less is more" structured approach that minimizes methodological steps and statistical data, promoting accessibility to all audiences by judicious use of links to further information in the full report. They emphasized concise, consistently presented formats that highlight key messages, flag readers to indicators of trust in the producers (i.e., logos, websites, and conflict of interest statements), and highlight the certainty of evidence (without extenuating details). CONCLUSIONS: This study identified guidance based on the preferences of guideline developers and evidence synthesis producers about the format of evidence synthesis summaries to support decision-making. The next steps involve developing and user-testing prototype formats through one-on-one semi-structured interviews to optimize evidence synthesis summaries and support decision-making.

Research Report: A Link between Sertraline Treatment and Susceptibility to (Mis)information.

Recent research revealed that several psycho-cognitive processes, such as insensitivity to positive and negative feedback, cognitive rigidity, pessimistic judgment bias, and anxiety, are involved in susceptibility to fake news. All of these processes have been previously associated with depressive disorder and are sensitive to serotoninergic manipulations. In the current study, a link between chronic treatment with the selective serotonin reuptake inhibitor (SSRI) sertraline and susceptibility to true and fake news was examined. Herein, a sample of 1162 participants was recruited via Prolific Academic for an online study. Half of the sample reported taking sertraline (Zoloft) for at least 8 weeks (sertraline group), and the other half confirmed not taking any psychiatric medication (control group). The sertraline group was further divided according to their daily dosage (50, 100, 150, and 200 mg/day). All participants completed a susceptibility to misinformation scale, wherein they were asked to determine the veracity of the presented true and fake news and their willingness to behaviorally engage with the news. The results were compared between those of the sertraline groups and the control group. The results showed that sertraline groups did not differ significantly in the assessment of the truthfulness of information or their ability to discern the truth. However, those taking sertraline appeared to have a significantly increased likelihood of behavioral engagement with the information, and this effect was observed for both true and fake news. The research presented here represents the initial endeavor to comprehend the neurochemical foundation of the susceptibility to misinformation. The association between sertraline treatment and increased behavioral engagement with information observed in this study can be explained in light of previous studies showing positive correlations between serotonin (5-HT) system activity and the inclination to engage in social behaviors. It can also be attributed to the anxiolytic effects of sertraline treatment, which mitigate the fear of social judgment. The heightened behavioral engagement with information in people taking sertraline may, as part of a general phenomenon, also shape their interactions with fake news. Future longitudinal studies should reveal the specificity and exact causality of these interactions.

Learning from climate change news: Is the world on the same page?

Climate change challenges countries around the world, and news media are key to the public's awareness and perception of it. But how are news media approaching climate change across countries? With the problem of climate change and its solution being global, it is key to determine whether differences in climate change news reports exist and what they are across countries. This study employs supervised machine learning to uncover topical and terminological differences between newspaper articles on climate change. An original dataset of climate change articles is presented, originating from 7 newspapers and 3 countries across the world, and published in English during 26 Conference of the Parties (COP) meetings from the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCC). Three aspects are used to discriminate between articles, being (1) countries, (2) political orientations, and (3) COP meetings. Our results reveal differences with regard to how newspaper articles approach climate change globally. Specifically, climate change-related terminology of left-oriented newspapers is more prevalent compared to their right-oriented counterparts. Also, over the years, newspapers' climate change-related terminology has evolved to convey a greater sense of urgency.

Low awareness of the transitivity assumption in complex networks of interventions: a systematic survey from 721 network meta-analyses.

BACKGROUND: The transitivity assumption is the cornerstone of network meta-analysis (NMA). Violating transitivity compromises the credibility of the indirect estimates and, by extent, the estimated treatment effects of the comparisons in the network. The present study offers comprehensive empirical evidence on the completeness of reporting and evaluating transitivity in systematic reviews with multiple interventions. METHODS: We screened the datasets of two previous empirical studies, resulting in 361 systematic reviews with NMA published between January 2011 and April 2015. We updated our evidence base with an additional 360 systematic reviews with NMA published between 2016 and 2021, employing a pragmatic approach. We devised assessment criteria for reporting and evaluating transitivity using relevant methodological literature and compared their reporting frequency before and after the PRISMA-NMA statement. RESULTS: Systematic reviews published after PRISMA-NMA were more likely to provide a protocol (odds ratio (OR): 3.94, 95% CI: 2.79-5.64), pre-plan the transitivity evaluation (OR: 3.01, 95% CI: 1.54-6.23), and report the evaluation and results (OR: 2.10, 95% CI: 1.55-2.86) than those before PRISMA-NMA. However, systematic reviews after PRISMA-NMA were less likely to define transitivity (OR: 0.57, 95% CI: 0.42-0.79) and discuss the implications of transitivity (OR: 0.48, 95% CI: 0.27-0.85) than those published before PRISMA-NMA. Most systematic reviews evaluated transitivity statistically than conceptually (40% versus 12% before PRISMA-NMA, and 54% versus 11% after PRISMA-NMA), with consistency evaluation being the most preferred (34% before versus 47% after PRISMA-NMA). One in five reviews inferred the plausibility of the transitivity (22% before versus 18% after PRISMA-NMA), followed by 11% of reviews that found it difficult to judge transitivity due to insufficient data. In justifying their conclusions, reviews considered mostly the comparability of the trials (24% before versus 30% after PRISMA-NMA), followed by the consistency evaluation (23% before versus 16% after PRISMA-NMA). CONCLUSIONS: Overall, there has been a slight improvement in reporting and evaluating transitivity since releasing PRISMA-NMA, particularly in items related to the systematic review report. Nevertheless, there has been limited attention to pre-planning the transitivity evaluation and low awareness of the conceptual evaluation methods that align with the nature of the assumption.

Frequency and classification of addenda in paediatric neuroradiological reports as part of quality assurance.

AIM: To determine the frequency and classification of addenda seen in paediatric brain magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) reports. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A retrospective review of the addenda of brain MRI reports from a large tertiary children's hospital was undertaken between January 2013 to December 2021 and a subset of above radiology reports was used to classify addenda over 6-month periods, October to March, spanning 2018 to 2021. A radiology fellow and a medical doctor classified the addenda into previously published categories using their best judgement. RESULTS: Out of 73,643 brain MRI reports over 9 years (108 months) included in the study, only 923 reports (1.25%) had addenda. There was a total of 13,615 brain MRI reports from 6-month periods, of which only 179 reports (1.31%) had an addendum. The number of errors according to categories were: observational 88/13,615 (0.65%); interpretational 16/13,615 (0.12%); non-observational and non-interpretative 82/13,615 (0.6%). Notifications to referring physician made in 29/13,615 (0.21%). CONCLUSIONS: The overall proportion of addenda to the brain MRI reports of children in the present study was low, at 1.25%. Categorisation of different addenda revealed the most common errors to be observational in 0.65%, including under-reading in the region of interest in 0.25%. Appropriate measures can now be introduced to minimise the error-based addenda further and improve MRI diagnosis in children. Other paediatric practices may choose to follow suit in evaluating their addenda and errors to improve practice.