Combining Frailty and Trabecular Bone Score Did Not Improve Predictive Accuracy in Risk of Major Osteoporotic Fractures.

It is recognized that the trabecular bone score (TBS) provides skeletal information, and frailty measurement is significantly associated with increased risks of adverse health outcomes. Given the suboptimal predictive power in fracture risk assessment tools, we aimed to evaluate the combination of frailty and TBS regarding predictive accuracy for risk of major osteoporotic fracture (MOF). Data from the prospective longitudinal study of CaMos (Canadian Multicentre Osteoporosis Study) were used for this study. TBS values were estimated using lumbar spine (L1 to L4 ) dual-energy X-ray absorptiometry (DXA) images; frailty was evaluated by a frailty index (FI) of deficit accumulation. Outcome was time to first incident MOF during the follow-up. We used the Harrell's C-index to compare the model predictive accuracy. The Akaike information criterion, likelihood ratio test, and net reclassification improvement (NRI) were used to compare model performances between the model combining frailty and TBS (subsequently called "FI + TBS"), FI-alone, and TBS-alone models. We included 2730 participants (mean age 69 years; 70% women) for analyses (mean follow-up 7.5 years). There were 243 (8.90%) MOFs observed during follow-up. Participants with MOF had significantly higher FI (0.24 versus 0.20) and lower TBS (1.231 versus 1.285) than those without MOF. FI and TBS were significantly related with MOF risk in the model adjusted for FRAX with bone mineral density (BMD) and other covariates: hazard ratio (HR) = 1.26 (95% confidence interval [CI] 1.11-1.43) for per-SD increase in FI; HR = 1.38 (95% CI 1.21-1.59) for per-SD decrease in TBS; and these associations showed negligible attenuation (HR = 1.24 for per-SD increase in FI, and 1.35 for per-SD decrease in TBS) when combined in the same model. Although the model FI + TBS was a better fit to the data than FI-alone and TBS-alone, only minimal and nonsignificant enhancement of discrimination and NRI were observed in FI + TBS. To conclude, frailty and TBS are significantly and independently related to MOF risk. Larger studies are warranted to determine whether combining frailty and TBS can yield improved predictive accuracy for MOF risk. © 2020 American Society for Bone and Mineral Research.

Does the medical literature remain inadequately described despite having reporting guidelines for 21 years? - A systematic review of reviews: an update.

PURPOSE: Reporting guidelines (eg, Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials [CONSORT] statement) are intended to improve reporting standards and enhance the transparency and reproducibility of research findings. Despite accessibility of such guidelines, researchers are not required to adhere to them. Our goal was to determine the current status of reporting quality in the medical literature and examine whether adherence of reporting guidelines has improved since the inception of reporting guidelines. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Eight reporting guidelines, such as CONSORT, Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA), STrengthening the Reporting of OBservational studies in Epidemiology (STROBE), Quality of Reporting of Meta-analysis (QUOROM), STAndards for Reporting of Diagnostic accuracy (STARD), Animal Research: Reporting In Vivo Experiments (ARRIVE), Consolidated Health Economic Evaluation Reporting Standards (CHEERS), and Meta-analysis of Observational Studies in Epidemiology (MOOSE) were examined. Our inclusion criteria included reviews published between January 1996 to September 2016 which investigated the adherence to reporting guidelines in the literature that addressed clinical trials, systematic reviews, observational studies, meta-analysis, diagnostic accuracy, economic evaluations, and preclinical animal studies that were in English. All reviews were found on Web of Science, Excerpta Medical Database (EMBASE), MEDLINE, and Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature (CINAHL). RESULTS: Among the general searching of 26,819 studies by using the designed searching method, 124 studies were included post screening. We found that 87.9% of the included studies reported suboptimal adherence to reporting guidelines. Factors associated with poor adherence included non-pharmacological interventions, year of publication, and trials concluding with significant results. Improved adherence was associated with better study designs such as allocation concealment, random sequence, large sample sizes, adequately powered studies, multiple authorships, and being published in journals endorsing guidelines. CONCLUSION: We conclude that the level of adherence to reporting guidelines remains suboptimal. Endorsement of reporting guidelines by journals is important and recommended.

Enhancing research publications and advancing scientific writing in health research collaborations: sharing lessons learnt from the trenches.

BACKGROUND: Disseminating research protocols, processes, methods or findings via peer-reviewed publications has substantive merits and benefits to various stakeholders. PURPOSE: In this article, we share strategies to enhance research publication contents (ie, what to write about) and to facilitate scientific writing (ie, how to write) in health research collaborations. METHODS: Empirical experience sharing. RESULTS: To enhance research publication contents, we encourage identifying appropriate opportunities for publications, publishing protocols ahead of results papers, seeking publications related to methodological issues, considering justified secondary analyses, and sharing academic process or experience. To advance writing, we suggest setting up scientific writing as a goal, seeking an appropriate mentorship, making full use of scientific meetings and presentations, taking some necessary formal training in areas such as effective communication and time and stress management, and embracing the iterative process of writing. CONCLUSION: All the strategies we share are dependent upon each other; and they advocate gradual academic accomplishments through study and training in a "success-breeds-success" way. It is expected that the foregoing shared strategies in this paper, together with other previous guidance articles, can assist one with enhancing research publications, and eventually one's academic success in health research collaborations.

Exploring the characteristics, global distribution and reasons for retraction of published articles involving human research participants: a literature survey.

AIM: Article retraction is a measure taken by journals or authors where there is evidence of research misconduct or error, redundancy, plagiarism or unethical research. Recently, the retraction of scientific publications has been on the rise. In this survey, we aimed to describe the characteristics and distribution of retracted articles and the reasons for retractions. METHODS: We searched retracted articles on the PubMed database and Retraction Watch website from 1980 to February 2016. The primary outcomes were the characteristics and distribution of retracted articles and the reasons for retractions. The secondary outcomes included how article retractions were handled by journals and how to improve the journal practices toward article retractions. RESULTS: We included 1,339 retracted articles. Most retracted articles had six authors or fewer. Article retraction was most common in the USA (26%), Japan (11%) and Germany (10%). The main reasons for article retraction were misconduct (51%, n = 685) and error (14%, n = 193). There were 66% (n = 889) of retracted articles having male senior or corresponding authors. Of the articles retracted after August 2010, 63% (n = 567) retractions were reported on Retraction Watch. Large discrepancies were observed in the ways that different journals handled article retractions. For instance, articles were completely withdrawn from some journals, while in others, articles were still available with no indication of retraction. Likewise, some retraction notices included a detailed account of the events that led to article retraction, while others only consisted of a statement indicating the article retraction. CONCLUSION: The characteristics, geographic distribution and reasons for retraction of published articles involving human research participants were examined in this survey. More efforts are needed to improve the consistency and transparency of journal practices toward article retractions.

An introduction to multiplicity issues in clinical trials: the what, why, when and how.

In clinical trials it is not uncommon to face a multiple testing problem which can have an impact on both type I and type II error rates, leading to inappropriate interpretation of trial results. Multiplicity issues may need to be considered at the design, analysis and interpretation stages of a trial. The proportion of trial reports not adequately correcting for multiple testing remains substantial. The purpose of this article is to provide an introduction to multiple testing issues in clinical trials, and to reduce confusion around the need for multiplicity adjustments. We use a tutorial, question-and-answer approach to address the key issues of why, when and how to consider multiplicity adjustments in trials. We summarize the relevant circumstances under which multiplicity adjustments ought to be considered, as well as options for carrying out multiplicity adjustments in terms of trial design factors including Population, Intervention/Comparison, Outcome, Time frame and Analysis (PICOTA). Results are presented in an easy-to-use table and flow diagrams. Confusion about multiplicity issues can be reduced or avoided by considering the potential impact of multiplicity on type I and II errors and, if necessary pre-specifying statistical approaches to either avoid or adjust for multiplicity in the trial protocol or analysis plan.

Prediction of individual combined benefit and harm for patients with atrial fibrillation considering warfarin therapy: a study protocol.

INTRODUCTION: Clinical prediction rules have been validated and widely used in patients with atrial fibrillation (AF) to predict stroke and major bleeding. However, these prediction rules were not developed in the same population, and do not provide the key information that patients and prescribers need at the time anticoagulants are being considered-what is the individual patient-specific risk of both benefit (decreased stroke) and harm (increased major bleeding). In this study, our primary objective is to develop and validate a prediction model for patients' individual combined benefit and harm outcomes (stroke, major bleeding and neither event) with and without warfarin therapy. Our secondary outcome is all-cause mortality. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: We will use data from the Kaiser Permanente Colorado (KPCO) anticoagulation management databases and electronic medical records. Patients with a primary or secondary diagnosis during an ambulatory KPCO medical office visit, emergency department visit, or inpatient stay between 1 January 2005 and 31 December 2012 with no AF diagnosis in the previous 180 days will be included. Patients' demographic characteristics, laboratory data, comorbidities, warfarin medication data and concurrent use of medication will be used to construct the prediction model. For primary outcomes (stroke with no major bleeding, and major bleeding with no stroke), we will perform polytomous logistic regression to develop a prediction model for patients' individual combined benefit and harm outcomes, taking neither event group as the reference group. As regards death, we will use Cox proportional hazards regression analysis to build a prediction model for all-cause mortality. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: This study has been approved by the KPCO Institutional Review Board and the Hamilton Integrated Research Ethics Board. Results from this study will be published in a peer-reviewed journal electronically and in print. The prediction models may aid in patient-physician shared decision-making when they are considering warfarin therapy.