Reporting of Complications in Rhinoplasty Randomized Controlled Trials: An Analysis Using the CONSORT Extension for Harms Checklist.

OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to assess the completeness of adverse event (AE) reporting in randomized control trials (RCTs) focused on rhinoplasty, using the Consolidated Standards for Reporting (CONSORT) Extension for Harms checklist. STUDY DESIGN: A cross-sectional design was employed to review RCTs related to rhinoplasty published between January 1, 2005, and January 28, 2022. SETTING: The study analyzed clinical trials on rhinoplasty retrieved from PubMed. METHODS: We performed a comprehension search on PubMed, blind and duplicate screening, and data extraction. Adherence to the 18 recommendations of the CONSORT Extension for Harms was evaluated, with 1 point assigned for each adhered item. Percent adherence was calculated based on the 18 points, taking into account the multiple subcategories within some recommendations. Descriptive statistics were used to summarize adherence-including frequencies, percentages, and 95% confidence intervals. RESULTS: Our search returned 240 articles, of which 56 met inclusion criteria. No RCTs adhered to all 18 CONSORT Extension for Harms items. Twenty-six (26/56, 46.4%) adhered to ≥50% of the items, and 30 (30/56, 53.6%) adhered to ≥33.3% of the items. Seven (7/56, 12.5%) RCTs adhered to no items. Across all RCTs, the average number of CONSORT-Harms items adhered to was 7.2 (7.2/18, 40.0%). The most adhered to item was item 10. Discussion balanced with regard to efficacy and AEs (80.4%, [70.0-90.8]). CONCLUSION: This study highlights the inadequacy of AE reporting in rhinoplasty RCTs according to CONSORT-Harms guidelines. Urgent efforts are required to bridge this reporting gap and enhance transparency in surgical research, ultimately safeguarding patient well-being.

Data-Sharing Across Otolaryngology: Comparing Journal Policies and Their Adherence to the FAIR Principles.

OBJECTIVE: Data-sharing plays an essential role in advancing scientific understanding. Here, we aim to identify the commonalities and differences in data-sharing policies endorsed by otolaryngology journals and to assess their adherence to the FAIR (findable, accessible, interoperable, reusable) principles. METHODS: Data-sharing policies were searched for among 111 otolaryngology journals, as listed by Scimago Journal & Country Rank. Policy extraction of the top biomedical journals as ranked by Google Scholar metrics were used as a comparison. The FAIR principles for scientific data management and stewardship were used for the extraction framework. This occurred in a blind, masked, and independent fashion. RESULTS: Of the 111 ranked otolaryngology journals, 100 met inclusion criteria. Of those 100 journals, 79 provided data-sharing policies. There was a clear lack of standardization across policies, along with specific gaps in accessibility and reusability which need to be addressed. Seventy-two policies (of 79; 91%) designated that metadata should have globally unique and persistent identifiers. Seventy-one (of 79; 90%) policies specified that metadata should clearly include the identifier of the data they describe. Fifty-six policies (of 79; 71%) outlined that metadata should be richly described with a plurality of accurate and relevant attributes. CONCLUSION: Otolaryngology journals have varying data-sharing policies, and adherence to the FAIR principles appears to be moderate. This calls for increased data transparency, allowing for results to be reproduced, confirmed, and debated.

Obesity, stigma, and person-centered language: A serial cross-sectional analysis of scientific literature.

OBJECTIVE: Language can influence societal perceptions of medical conditions. The employment of person-centered language (PCL) in health care is reflected in many scientific publications; however, the extent of this adaptation in reference to obesity is unknown. METHODS: This cross-sectional analysis included a systematic search of PubMed obesity-related articles across four cohorts spanning January 2004 through December 2006; January 2008 through December 2010; January 2015 through December 2018; and January 2019 through May 2020, respectively. Approximately 1971 publications were screened and examined for prespecified, non-PCL terminology set forth by the American Medical Association Manual of Style and the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors, of which 991 were retained. Statistical analysis demonstrating PCL and non-PCL findings was then performed. Incidence rates and cohort classifications were reported. RESULTS: Of the 991 articles examined, it was found that 24.02% of publications adhered to PCL. Similar adherence was observed across obesity-specific, general medicine, and nutrition journals. PCL adherence increased over time. The most common non-PCL label was "obese," occurring in 75.48% of articles. CONCLUSIONS: This investigation showed that non-PCL in reference to obesity is widely evident in weight-focused journals despite recommendations for adherence to PCL guidelines. Continued use of non-PCL in reference to obesity in research may inadvertently perpetuate weight-based stigma and health disparities in future generations.

Discontinuation and nonpublication analysis of chronic pain randomized controlled trials.

Introduction: The primary objective of this cross-sectional analysis is to evaluate rates of discontinuation and nonpublication of Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) of therapeutic interventions to treat chronic pain. Methods: Using ClinicalTrials.gov, a sample was obtained which included clinical trials pertaining to chronic pain. Trials were analyzed for publication status and completion status of each trial. If information was unavailable on the trial registry database, or could not be allocated through a systematic search, the corresponding trialist was contacted and data points were gathered. Results: In our final analysis of the 408 RCTs, we found that 281 (68.9%) were published in a peer-reviewed journal and 127 (31.1%) were unpublished trials. Of 112 discontinued trials, 59 (52.7%) reached publication. In addition, 221 of 296 completed trials (74.7%) were published, and 75 (25.3%) remained unpublished after trial completion. The most common listed reason for trial discontinuation was administrative recommendations (41 of 71 trials [57.7%]), while not receiving an email reply to our standardized email from the corresponding trialist was the most common result for trial nonpublication (49 of 88 trials [55.7%]). Clinical trials funded by nonindustry sponsors were more likely to reach publication than industry-funded clinical trials (unadjusted odds ratio 1.86 [95% CI, 1.18-2.95]; adjusted odds ratio 3.01 [95% CI, 1.76-5.14]). Conclusion: The rate of discontinuation of RCTs involving patients with chronic pain is concerning. Chronic pain affects many patients; thus, the importance of having quality data from clinical trials cannot be overstated. Our study indicates that chronic pain RCTs are frequently discontinued and their findings often go unpublished - all of which could provide crucial information to providers and patients regarding the treatment of chronic pain. We offer suggestions to enhance chronic pain RCT completion, thereby reducing the waste of resources in chronic pain research.

Clinical trial data-sharing policies among journals, funding agencies, foundations, and other professional organizations: a scoping review.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: To identify the similarities and differences in data-sharing policies for clinical trial data that are endorsed by biomedical journals, funding agencies, and other professional organizations. Additionally, to determine the beliefs, and opinions regarding data-sharing policies for clinical trials discussed in articles published in biomedical journals. METHODS: Two searches were conducted, a bibliographic search for published articles that present beliefs, opinions, similarities, and differences regarding policies governing the sharing of clinical trial data. The second search analyzed the gray literature (non-peer-reviewed publications) to identify important data-sharing policies in selected biomedical journals, foundations, funding agencies, and other professional organizations. RESULTS: A total of 471 articles were included after database search and screening, with 45 from the bibliographic search and 426 from the gray literature search. A total of 424 data-sharing policies were included. Fourteen of the 45 published articles from the bibliographic search (31.1%) discussed only advantages specific to data-sharing policies, 27 (27/45; 60%) discussed both advantages and disadvantages, and 4 (4/45; 8.9%) discussed only disadvantages specific. A total of 216 journals (of 270; 80%) specified a data-sharing policy provided by the journal itself. One hundred industry data-sharing policies were included, and 32 (32%) referenced a data-sharing policy on their website. One hundred and thirty-six (42%) organizations (of 327) specified a data-sharing policy. CONCLUSION: We found many similarities listed as advantages to data-sharing and fewer disadvantages were discussed within the literature. Additionally, we found a wide variety of commonalities and differences-such as the lack of standardization between policies, and inadequately addressed details regarding the accessibility of research data-that exist in data-sharing policies endorsed by biomedical journals, funding agencies, and other professional organizations. Our study may not include information on all data sharing policies and our data is limited to the entities' descriptions of each policy.

An Evaluation of Research Publications for General Surgery Residents And its Influence on the Future Pursuit of Fellowship or Academic Career.

INTRODUCTION: Traditionally, the Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education (ACGME) requires residency programs to implement research and other scholarly activities into their training curriculum. Encouraging residents to publish during residency is believed to promote research throughout their careers; however, the rate of research outcomes among general surgery residents remains unknown. Our study aims to determine associated factors that influence publication rates before, during, and after general surgery residency. METHODS: This observational study employed a cross-sectional design. We examined whether research outcomes during general surgery residency was associated with academic advancement or continued research involvement after residency. We identified 321 general surgery residency programs on the Doximity website and randomly selected 50 to include in our sample. Of these programs, graduate rosters for 31 programs were located and subsequently included. Of the 405 residency graduates identified, we recorded the number of peer-reviewed publications, H-indices, fellowships, and whether the graduate pursued a career in private practice or academia. RESULTS: Among the 405 physicians analyzed, 3815 total publications were identified with a mean of 9.4 (SD 11.8) per person. The most reported study design was observational studies (46.5%; 1775/3815) and the least reported was systematic reviews/meta-analyses (1.4%; 52/3815). The number of publications before residency positively correlated with having a higher h-index (r = 0.4). We also found that physicians who completed a fellowship had more publications during residency (mean = 4.7, SD = 6.5) than those not pursuing a fellowship (mean = 1.5, SD = 2.7; t= -4.3. p ≤ 0.001). We observed a statistically significant increase in the likelihood a physician pursued a career in academic medicine if they pursued a fellowship (OR: 3.77, 95% CI: 2.0-7.2) and if they had published research as a primary author (OR 1.25, 95% CI: 1.0-1.5). CONCLUSION: Increased research productivity was associated with continued academic pursuits and an increased likelihood of pursuing fellowship training after residency.

Analysis of Systematic Reviews in Clinical Practice Guidelines for Head and Neck Cancer.

OBJECTIVE: Clinical practice guidelines (CPGs) are essential to clinical decision-making as their recommendations are supported by published literature. Systematic reviews are considered the highest quality of evidence used to underpin these guidelines. However, research to support these recommendations may lack compliance to quality reporting among systematic reviews (SRs). Here, we aim to evaluate the quality of SRs underpinning CPG recommendations for the management of head and neck cancer (HNC). STUDY DESIGN: Retrospective cross-sectional analysis. METHODS: Using PubMed, we searched for CPGs pertinent to the management of head and neck cancer published between January 2017 and May 2021. Relevant guidelines were analyzed for all SRs. Cited SRs in CPGs were evaluated using A Measurement Tool to Assess Systematic Reviews-2 (AMSTAR-2) and Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) instruments. Study characteristics were extracted in a masked triplicate fashion. RESULTS: A total of 16 CPGs and 142 unique SRs were included in our study. PRISMA completion ranged from 67.15% to 87.65% across CPGs with a mean of 76.41% (SD = 16.9). AMSTAR-2 completion ranged from 34.38% to 84.38% across CPGs with a mean of 67.55% (SD = 20.9) among all SRs. The lowest rated items included funding sources and publication bias. A higher score was achieved in SR done by Cochrane group and it was only 2.11% (3/142) of all SR's quoted in CPG. CONCLUSION: Adherence to AMSTAR-2 and PRISMA items exhibits a variation among SRs cited in CPGs for the management of HNC. The mature underpinning CPG recommendation of SRs cited as supportive evidence could be enhanced in reporting quality. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: NA Laryngoscope, 132:1976-1983, 2022.

The Use of Person-centered Language in Medical Research Articles Focusing on Hearing Loss or Deafness.

BACKGROUND: Hearing loss represents one of the most common disabilities worldwide. Despite its prevalence, there is a degree of stigmatization within the public's perception of, or attitude toward, individuals diagnosed with hearing loss or deafness. This stigmatization is propagated by the way hearing loss is referenced, especially in writing. Although the medical community is familiar with hearing loss, medical research is not consistently compliant with nonstigmatizing terminology, like person-centered language (PCL). This study aims to quantify the use of PCL in medical research related to hearing loss. METHODS: A cross-sectional analysis of articles related to hearing loss was performed using PubMed as the primary search engine. The search encompassed articles from January 1, 2016, to November 17, 2020. Journals had to have at least 20 search returns to be included in this study. The primary search resulted in 2392 articles from 31 journals. The sample was then randomized and the first 500 articles were chosen for data extraction. Article screening was performed systematically. Each article was evaluated for predetermined non-PCL terminology to determine adherence to the American Medical Association Manual of Style (AMAMS) guidelines. Articles were included if they involved research with human participants and were available in English. Commentaries and editorials were excluded. RESULTS: Four hundred eighty-two articles were included in this study. Results from this study indicate that 326 articles were not adherent to AMAMS guidelines for PCL (326/482; 68%). Emotional language (i.e., burden, suffer, afflicted) was employed to reference hearing loss in 114 articles (114/482; 24%). Non-PCL adherent labels (i.e., impaired and handicapped) were identified in 46% (221/482) of articles related to hearing loss or deafness. Sixty-seven articles (67/482; 14%) used person-first language in reference to the word "deaf" and 15 articles (15/482; 3%) used "deaf" as a label. CONCLUSIONS: Based on the findings from this cross-sectional analysis, the majority of medical research articles that address hearing loss contain terminology that does not conform to PCL guidelines, as established by AMAMS. Many respected organizations, like the American Medical Association, have encouraged the use of PCL in interactions between patient and medical provider. This encompasses communication in person and in writing. This recommendation stems from the understood role that language plays in how we build impressions of others, especially in a medical context. Implementing PCL to destigmatize language used in reference to deafness or hearing loss is essential to increase advocacy and protect the autonomy of these individuals.

An analysis of publication trends of orthopedic surgery residency graduates in relation to academic achievement.

CONTEXT: Traditionally, the Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education (ACGME) requires residency programs to implement research and other scholarly activities into their training curriculum. Encouraging residents to publish during residency is believed to promote research throughout their careers; however, no study has attempted to quantify research productivity among orthopedic surgery residents before, during, and after residency. OBJECTIVES: To determine whether publishing in peer-reviewed journals during orthopedic residencies was an indicator of continued academic achievement after graduation. METHODS: This study was observational in nature and employed a cross-sectional design. We examined whether research outcomes during orthopedic residency was associated with academic advancement or continued research involvement after residency. We identified 201 orthopedic residency programs on the Doximity website and randomly selected 50 to include in our sample. Of these programs, graduate rosters for 31 programs were located and subsequently included. Of the 341 graduates identified, we recorded the number of peer-reviewed publications, H-indices, fellowships, and whether the graduate pursued a career in private practice or academia. RESULTS: Orthopedic residency graduates from 31 programs published a total of 1923 peer-reviewed manuscripts. On average, residents had a total of 5.6 publications and an h-index of 3.2. Residents entering academia and pursuing fellowships had a significantly higher total number of publications, higher number of first-author publications, and greater H-indices compared to those who did not enter academia or pursue a fellowship. CONCLUSIONS: Increased research productivity was associated with continued academic pursuits and an increased likelihood of pursuing fellowship training after residency.

Evaluation of Industry Relationships Among Authors of Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses Regarding Ménières Disease.

OBJECTIVES: To quantify the presence of conflicts of interest (COI) in SRs and MAs of Ménières disease treatment and identify any related secondary characteristics of these articles. METHODS: A search was conducted on May 28, 2020 to search MEDLINE and Embase databases for SRs or MAs pertaining to Ménières disease published between September 1, 2016 and June 2, 2020. A risk of bias assessment was performed using the Cochrane Collaboration risk of bias assessment criteria. RESULTS: A total of 13 systematic reviews conducted by 49 authors met the inclusion criteria. Of the 49 authors, 7 (14.3%) were found to have some form of COI. Of these 7 authors, 1 (14.3%) completely disclosed all COI within the SR, 1 (14.3%) disclosed one or more COI but were found to have an additional undisclosed COI, and 5 (71.4%) were found to have only undisclosed COI. One of 2 industry funded SRs (50%) had a high risk of bias, and 1 (50%) of the non-industry sponsored SRs were found to have a high risk of bias. CONCLUSIONS: Overall authors of SRs pertaining to Ménières disease appear to be properly disclosing COI at higher rates than other fields of medicine; however, further room for improvement has been noted.

Discontinuation and nonpublication of pediatric otolaryngology clinical trials.

OBJECTIVES: Randomized controlled trial (RCT) discontinuation and nonpublication are potential mechanisms of waste in resources and lead to decreased advancement of medical science and compromised ethical issues in all specialties. However, the prevalence of discontinued or unpublished RCTs regarding common pediatric otolaryngology disorders and interventions remains unclear. STUDY DESIGN: Cross-sectional analysis. METHODS: Retrospective analysis of common pediatric otolaryngology RCTs registered in ClinicalTrials.gov up until November 2, 2018. Data were collected from the registry, and publication status was identified. If a reason for trial discontinuation or nonpublication was not identified through a systematic search, corresponding trialists were contacted through email. RESULTS: After exclusion, 260 RCTs were included for analysis. Analysis found 198 (76%) RCTs were completed, and 62 (24%) trials were discontinued. The most commonly reported reasons for RCT discontinuation were program termination by sponsor or management (7/24; 29.2%), lack of participant enrollment, difficulty recruiting, or slow accrual (7/24; 29.2%). A total of 192 (192/260; 73.8%) published RCTs and 68 (68/260; 26.2%) unpublished RCTs were identified. Twenty-six (26/62; 42%) of the discontinued RCTs reached publication, while 36 (58%) remained unpublished. Regarding the completed RCTs, 166 of 198 (83.8%) completed trials reached publication, while 32 (32/198; 16.2%) remained unpublished after trial completion. CONCLUSIONS: Approximately 1 in 4 of included RCTs were discontinued or did not reach publication. Findings suggest further guidance is needed for RCTs regarding common pediatric otolaryngology disorders and interventions. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: NA.

Scholarly Research Productivity among Otolaryngology Residency Graduates and its Relationship to Future Academic Achievement.

OBJECTIVE: Scholastic activity through research involvement is a fundamental aspect of a physician's training and may have a significant influence on future academic success. Here, we explore publication rates before, during, and after otolaryngology residency training and whether publication efforts correlate with future academic achievement. METHODS: This cross-sectional analysis included a random sample of 50 otolaryngology residency programs. From these programs, we assembled a list of residents graduating from the years in 2013, 2014, and 2015. Using SCOPUS, PubMed, and Google Scholar, we compiled the publications for each graduate, and data were extracted in an independent, double-blinded fashion. RESULTS: We included 32 otolaryngology residency programs representing 249 residents in this analysis. Graduates published a mean of 1.3 (SD = 2.7) articles before residency, 3.5 (SD = 4.3) during residency, and 5.3 (SD = 9.3) after residency. Residents who pursued a fellowship had more total publications (t247 = -6.1, P < .001) and more first author publications (t247 = -5.4, P < .001) than residents without fellowship training. Graduates who chose a career in academic medicine had a higher number of mean total publications (t247 = -8.2, P < .001) and first author publications (t247 = -7.9, P < .001) than those who were not in academic medicine. There was a high positive correlation between residency program size and publications during residency (r = 0.76). CONCLUSION: Research productivity correlated with a number of characteristics such as future fellowship training, the pursuit of an academic career, and overall h-index in this study.

Citation bias in otolaryngology systematic reviews.

OBJECTIVE: Reproducibility of systemic reviews (SRs) can be hindered by the presence of citation bias. Citation bias may occur when authors of SRs conduct hand-searches of included study reference lists to identify additional studies. Such a practice may lead to exaggerated SR summary effects. The purpose of this paper is to examine the prevalence of hand-searching reference lists in otolaryngology SRs. METHODS: The authors searched for systematic reviews published in eight clinical otolaryngology journals using the Cochrane Library and PubMed, with the date parameter of January 1, 2008, to December 31, 2017. Two independent authors worked separately to extract data from each SR for the following elements: whether reference lists were hand-searched, other kinds of supplemental searching, PRISMA adherence, and funding source. Following extraction, the investigators met to review discrepancies and achieve consensus. RESULTS: A total of 539 systemic reviews, 502 from clinical journals and 37 from the Cochrane library, were identified. Of those SRs, 72.4% (390/539) hand-searched reference lists, including 97.3% (36/37) of Cochrane reviews. For 228 (58.5%) of the SRs that hand-searched reference lists, no other supplemental search (e.g., search of trial registries) was conducted. CONCLUSIONS: These findings indicate that hand-searching reference lists is a common practice in otolaryngology SRs. Moreover, a majority of studies at risk of citation bias did not attempt to mitigate the bias by conducting additional supplemental searches. The implication is that summary effects in otolaryngology systematic reviews may be biased toward statistically significant findings.

Publication Trends and Their Relationship With Academic Success Among Dermatology Residents: Cross-sectional Analysis.

BACKGROUND: Involvement in scholarly activities is considered to be one of the foundational pillars of medical education. OBJECTIVE: This study aims to investigate publication rates before, during, and after residency to determine whether research productivity throughout medical training correlates with future academic success and research involvement. METHODS: We successfully identified a list of 296 graduates from 25 US dermatology residency programs from the years 2013-2015. The publication history for each graduate was compiled using Scopus, PubMed, and Google Scholar. The Pearson correlation test and linear regression were used to assess the relationship between research productivity and continued academic success after residency graduation. RESULTS: Before residency, graduates published a mean of 1.9 (SD 3.5) total publications and a mean of 0.88 (SD 1.5) first-author publications. During residency, graduates published a mean of 2.7 (SD 3.6) total publications and a mean of 1.39 (SD 2.0) first-author publications. Graduates who pursued a fellowship had more total publications (t294=-4.0; P<.001), more first-author publications (t294=-3.9; P<.001), and a higher h-index (t294=-3.8; P=.002). Graduates who chose to pursue careers in academic medicine had more mean total publications (t294=-7.5; P<.001), more first-author publications (t294=-5.9; P<.001), and a higher mean h-index (t294=-6.9; P<.001). Graduates with one or more first-author publications before residency were 1.3 times more likely to pursue a career in academic medicine (adjusted odds ratio 1.3, 95% CI 1.1-1.5). Graduates who pursued a fellowship were also 1.9 times more likely to pursue a career in academic medicine (adjusted odds ratio 1.9, 95% CI 1.2-3.2). CONCLUSIONS: Our results suggest that research productivity before and during residency training are potential markers for continued academic success and research involvement after completing dermatology residency training.

The Potential Effect of Lowering the Threshold of Statistical Significance From P < .05 to P < .005 in Orthopaedic Sports Medicine.

PURPOSE: To determine how changing the P value threshold of statistical significance from .05 to .005 could affect the statistical significance of findings in previously published orthopaedic sports medicine randomized controlled trials (RCTs). METHODS: The authors searched PubMed from January 1, 2016, to December 31, 2017, for RCTs published in the American Journal of Sports Medicine, Arthroscopy, and Knee Surgery, Sports Traumatology, Arthroscopy. Data were extracted blinded and in duplicate fashion by 2 of us. The authors then extracted P value data for primary end points, since RCTs are most often powered for these end points. Discrepancies were resolved by consensus. Google Forms were used for data extraction and STATA 15.1 for the data analysis. RESULTS: In total, 275 primary end points were identified from 132 trials. Analysis of primary end points found 45.8% (126/275) had a P value less than .05 and were classified as statistically significant under the current threshold, whereas 54.2% (149/275) had a P value greater than .05 and were not classified as suggestive. Of those end points that were previously considered statistically significant, 38.9% (49/126) were less than .005, whereas 61.1% (77/126) were between .005 and .05 and thereby would be reclassified as suggestive rather than statistically significant under the proposed threshold. Overall, when analyzing the 275 primary end points, we found only 49 (17.8%) of the end points were less than .005 and would hold statistical significance with the proposed threshold. CONCLUSIONS: The results suggest that if the threshold of statistical significance were to change to .005, the significance of orthopaedic sports medicine RCTs would be heavily altered. The authors also acknowledge the many issues research faces in regard to P value reliability and therefore interpretation of study results. Because P values from RCTs can often influence the ways physicians choose interventions, it is important to implement methodology that decreases incidence of bias and misrepresentation of these results. However, the authors also understand that lowering the P value could increase the needed sample size and by consequence increase study costs as well, while not directly correlating to clinical significance. Thus, the authors recommend that this proposed threshold should be further evaluated and cautiously interpreted. CLINICAL RELEVANCE: If the statistical significance threshold is changed, clinical practice guideline recommendations also may be affected.

Is World Malaria Day an effective awareness campaign? An evaluation of public interest in malaria during World Malaria Day.

OBJECTIVE: We retrospectively analysed the relative search interest of malaria to (1) assess the relationship between Internet searches for malaria and rates of infection in 11 countries considered 'high burden' by WHO in 2019 and to (2) determine the ability of World Malaria Day on April 25 to generate interest in the disease. METHODS: Using Google Trends, we sought to determine the relative popularity of the topic of Malaria over 4 years (2015-2019). Worldwide and country-specific searches for 'malaria' were used to assess the influence the international awareness day has on global and local interest in malaria. In order to determine whether a relationship exists between Internet searches and the disease burden of malaria, the information gathered from Google Trends was then compared with reports of morbidity and mortality of malaria from the 2019 World Malaria Report. RESULTS: Globally, a negative mean difference in relative search volume was observed between World Malaria Day and the control periods of -2.46 (95% CI: -5.57 to 0.66). The relative search volume for malaria-related search terms increased by 2.91% (±4.60) from January 2015 to 1 July 2019 in the 5 countries with the highest malaria disease burden. A positive correlation (r = 0.804) was found between per capita infections and malaria Internet search interest in addition to deaths per 1000 residents and malaria relative search interest (r = 0.663) between 2015 and 2018. CONCLUSION: Initiatives such as World Malaria Day may help raise public awareness concerning a specific disease, prompting individuals to seek out additional information. This is especially important in high-burden countries where access to the Internet is steadily growing. In these circumstances, having quality and easily accessible information is vital in the continuing fight against malaria.

OBJECTIF: Nous avons analysé rétrospectivement l'intérêt de recherche relatif du paludisme pour (1) évaluer la relation entre les recherches sur Internet pour le paludisme et les taux d'infection dans 11 pays considérés comme «à forte charge¼ par l'OMS en 2019 et pour (2) déterminer la capacité de la Journée Mondiale contre le Paludisme, le 25 avril à susciter l'intérêt pour la maladie. MÉTHODES: A l'aide de Google Trends, nous avons cherché à déterminer la popularité relative du thème du paludisme sur 4 ans (2015-2019). Des recherches mondiales et spécifiques aux pays pour le «paludisme¼ ont été utilisées pour évaluer l'influence de la journée internationale de sensibilisation sur l'intérêt mondial et local pour le paludisme. Afin de déterminer s'il existe une relation entre les recherches sur Internet et la charge de morbidité du paludisme, les informations recueillies à partir de Google Trends ont ensuite été comparées aux rapports sur la morbidité et la mortalité du paludisme du Rapport Mondial sur le Paludisme 2019. RÉSULTATS: Globalement, une différence moyenne négative du volume de recherche relative a été observée entre la Journée Mondiale contre le Paludisme et les périodes témoins de -2,46 (IC95%: -5,57 à 0,66). Le volume de recherche relatif pour les termes de recherche liés au paludisme a augmenté de 2,91% (± 4,60) de janvier 2015 au 1er juillet 2019 dans les 5 pays où la charge de morbidité du paludisme est la plus élevée. Une corrélation positive (r = 0,804) a été trouvée entre les infections par habitant et l'intérêt de la recherche sur le paludisme sur Internet en plus des décès pour 1000 habitants et l'intérêt de la recherche relative du paludisme (r = 0,663) entre 2015 et 2018. CONCLUSION: Des initiatives telles que la Journée Mondiale contre le Paludisme peuvent contribuer à sensibiliser le public à une maladie spécifique, incitant les individus à rechercher des informations supplémentaires. Ceci est particulièrement important dans les pays à forte charge où l'accès à Internet est en constante augmentation. Dans ces circonstances, il est essentiel de disposer d'informations de qualité et facilement accessibles pour la lutte continue contre le paludisme.

An analysis of key indicators of reproducibility in radiology.

BACKGROUND: Given the central role of radiology in patient care, it is important that radiological research is grounded in reproducible science. It is unclear whether there is a lack of reproducibility or transparency in radiologic research. PURPOSE: To analyze published radiology literature for the presence or lack of key indicators of reproducibility. METHODS: This cross-sectional retrospective study was performed by conducting a search of the National Library of Medicine (NLM) for publications contained within journals in the field of radiology. Our inclusion criteria were being MEDLINE indexed, written in English, and published from January 1, 2014, to December 31, 2018. We randomly sampled 300 publications for this study. A pilot-tested Google form was used to record information from the publications regarding indicators of reproducibility. Following peer-review, we extracted data from an additional 200 publications in an attempt to reproduce our initial results. The additional 200 publications were selected from the list of initially randomized publications. RESULTS: Our initial search returned 295,543 records, from which 300 were randomly selected for analysis. Of these 300 records, 294 met inclusion criteria and 6 did not. Among the empirical publications, 5.6% (11/195, [3.0-8.3]) contained a data availability statement, 0.51% (1/195) provided clear documented raw data, 12.0% (23/191, [8.4-15.7]) provided a materials availability statement, 0% provided analysis scripts, 4.1% (8/195, [1.9-6.3]) provided a pre-registration statement, 2.1% (4/195, [0.4-3.7]) provided a protocol statement, and 3.6% (7/195, [1.5-5.7]) were pre-registered. The validation study of the 5 key indicators of reproducibility-availability of data, materials, protocols, analysis scripts, and pre-registration-resulted in 2 indicators (availability of protocols and analysis scripts) being reproduced, as they fell within the 95% confidence intervals for the proportions from the original sample. However, materials' availability and pre-registration proportions from the validation sample were lower than what was found in the original sample. CONCLUSION: Our findings demonstrate key indicators of reproducibility are missing in the field of radiology. Thus, the ability to reproduce studies contained in radiology publications may be problematic and may have potential clinical implications.

Reproducible and transparent research practices in published neurology research.

BACKGROUND: The objective of this study was to evaluate the nature and extent of reproducible and transparent research practices in neurology publications. METHODS: The NLM catalog was used to identify MEDLINE-indexed neurology journals. A PubMed search of these journals was conducted to retrieve publications over a 5-year period from 2014 to 2018. A random sample of publications was extracted. Two authors conducted data extraction in a blinded, duplicate fashion using a pilot-tested Google form. This form prompted data extractors to determine whether publications provided access to items such as study materials, raw data, analysis scripts, and protocols. In addition, we determined if the publication was included in a replication study or systematic review, was preregistered, had a conflict of interest declaration, specified funding sources, and was open access. RESULTS: Our search identified 223,932 publications meeting the inclusion criteria, from which 400 were randomly sampled. Only 389 articles were accessible, yielding 271 publications with empirical data for analysis. Our results indicate that 9.4% provided access to materials, 9.2% provided access to raw data, 0.7% provided access to the analysis scripts, 0.7% linked the protocol, and 3.7% were preregistered. A third of sampled publications lacked funding or conflict of interest statements. No publications from our sample were included in replication studies, but a fifth were cited in a systematic review or meta-analysis. CONCLUSIONS: Currently, published neurology research does not consistently provide information needed for reproducibility. The implications of poor research reporting can both affect patient care and increase research waste. Collaborative intervention by authors, peer reviewers, journals, and funding sources is needed to mitigate this problem.