Defining and Risk-Stratifying Immunosuppression (the DESTINIES Study): Protocol for an Electronic Delphi Study.

BACKGROUND: Globally, there are marked inconsistencies in how immunosuppression is characterized and subdivided into clinical risk groups. This is detrimental to the precision and comparability of disease surveillance efforts-which has negative implications for the care of those who are immunosuppressed and their health outcomes. This was particularly apparent during the COVID-19 pandemic; despite collective motivation to protect these patients, conflicting clinical definitions created international rifts in how those who were immunosuppressed were monitored and managed during this period. We propose that international clinical consensus be built around the conditions that lead to immunosuppression and their gradations of severity concerning COVID-19. Such information can then be formalized into a digital phenotype to enhance disease surveillance and provide much-needed intelligence on risk-prioritizing these patients. OBJECTIVE: We aim to demonstrate how electronic Delphi objectives, methodology, and statistical approaches will help address this lack of consensus internationally and deliver a COVID-19 risk-stratified phenotype for "adult immunosuppression." METHODS: Leveraging existing evidence for heterogeneous COVID-19 outcomes in adults who are immunosuppressed, this work will recruit over 50 world-leading clinical, research, or policy experts in the area of immunology or clinical risk prioritization. After 2 rounds of clinical consensus building and 1 round of concluding debate, these panelists will confirm the medical conditions that should be classed as immunosuppressed and their differential vulnerability to COVID-19. Consensus statements on the time and dose dependencies of these risks will also be presented. This work will be conducted iteratively, with opportunities for panelists to ask clarifying questions between rounds and provide ongoing feedback to improve questionnaire items. Statistical analysis will focus on levels of agreement between responses. RESULTS: This protocol outlines a robust method for improving consensus on the definition and meaningful subdivision of adult immunosuppression concerning COVID-19. Panelist recruitment took place between April and May of 2024; the target set for over 50 panelists was achieved. The study launched at the end of May and data collection is projected to end in July 2024. CONCLUSIONS: This protocol, if fully implemented, will deliver a universally acceptable, clinically relevant, and electronic health record-compatible phenotype for adult immunosuppression. As well as having immediate value for COVID-19 resource prioritization, this exercise and its output hold prospective value for clinical decision-making across all diseases that disproportionately affect those who are immunosuppressed. INTERNATIONAL REGISTERED REPORT IDENTIFIER (IRRID): PRR1-10.2196/56271.

Survival analysis for AdVerse events with VarYing follow-up times (SAVVY): summary of findings and assessment of existing guidelines.

BACKGROUND: The SAVVY project aims to improve the analyses of adverse events (AEs) in clinical trials through the use of survival techniques appropriately dealing with varying follow-up times and competing events (CEs). This paper summarizes key features and conclusions from the various SAVVY papers. METHODS: Summarizing several papers reporting theoretical investigations using simulations and an empirical study including randomized clinical trials from several sponsor organizations, biases from ignoring varying follow-up times or CEs are investigated. The bias of commonly used estimators of the absolute (incidence proportion and one minus Kaplan-Meier) and relative (risk and hazard ratio) AE risk is quantified. Furthermore, we provide a cursory assessment of how pertinent guidelines for the analysis of safety data deal with the features of varying follow-up time and CEs. RESULTS: SAVVY finds that for both, avoiding bias and categorization of evidence with respect to treatment effect on AE risk into categories, the choice of the estimator is key and more important than features of the underlying data such as percentage of censoring, CEs, amount of follow-up, or value of the gold-standard. CONCLUSIONS: The choice of the estimator of the cumulative AE probability and the definition of CEs are crucial. Whenever varying follow-up times and/or CEs are present in the assessment of AEs, SAVVY recommends using the Aalen-Johansen estimator (AJE) with an appropriate definition of CEs to quantify AE risk. There is an urgent need to improve pertinent clinical trial reporting guidelines for reporting AEs so that incidence proportions or one minus Kaplan-Meier estimators are finally replaced by the AJE with appropriate definition of CEs.

An Assessment of the Quality of Competence Restoration Research.

A systematic review of the literature on restoration of competence to stand trial identified a predominance of retrospective case studies using descriptive and correlational statistics. Guided by National Institutes of Health (NIH) quality metrics and emphasizing study design, sample size, and statistical methods, the authors categorized a large majority of studies as fair in quality, underscoring the need for controlled designs, larger representative samples, and more sophisticated statistical analyses. Implications for the state of forensic research include the need to use large databases within jurisdictions and the importance of reliable methods that can be applied across jurisdictions and aggregated for meta-analysis. More sophisticated research methods can be advanced in forensic fellowship training where coordinated projects and curricula can encourage systematic approaches to forensic research.

A practical guide for writing a PhD thesis.

There is an increasing number of PhD students in health sciences, but no formal reporting guideline for writing a thesis exists. This review provides a practical guide with an overview of the article-based/synopsis PhD thesis that consists of eight parts: 1) initial formalities, 2) introduction, 3) methodological considerations, 4) study presentations, 5) discussion, 6) conclusion, 7) perspectives, and 8) concluding formalities. It is elaborated with detailed information, practical advice, and a template, so the thesis complies with the demands of the Danish Graduate Schools of Health Sciences.

Adaptive designs were primarily used but inadequately reported in early phase drug trials.

BACKGROUND: Faced with the high cost and limited efficiency of classical randomized controlled trials, researchers are increasingly applying adaptive designs to speed up the development of new drugs. However, the application of adaptive design to drug randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and whether the reporting is adequate are unclear. Thus, this study aimed to summarize the epidemiological characteristics of the relevant trials and assess their reporting quality by the Adaptive designs CONSORT Extension (ACE) checklist. METHODS: We searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) and ClinicalTrials.gov from inception to January 2020. We included drug RCTs that explicitly claimed to be adaptive trials or used any type of adaptative design. We extracted the epidemiological characteristics of included studies to summarize their adaptive design application. We assessed the reporting quality of the trials by Adaptive designs CONSORT Extension (ACE) checklist. Univariable and multivariable linear regression models were used to the association of four prespecified factors with the quality of reporting. RESULTS: Our survey included 108 adaptive trials. We found that adaptive design has been increasingly applied over the years, and was commonly used in phase II trials (n = 45, 41.7%). The primary reasons for using adaptive design were to speed the trial and facilitate decision-making (n = 24, 22.2%), maximize the benefit of participants (n = 21, 19.4%), and reduce the total sample size (n = 15, 13.9%). Group sequential design (n = 63, 58.3%) was the most frequently applied method, followed by adaptive randomization design (n = 26, 24.1%), and adaptive dose-finding design (n = 24, 22.2%). The proportion of adherence to the ACE checklist of 26 topics ranged from 7.4 to 99.1%, with eight topics being adequately reported (i.e., level of adherence ≥ 80%), and eight others being poorly reported (i.e., level of adherence ≤ 30%). In addition, among the seven items specific for adaptive trials, three were poorly reported: accessibility to statistical analysis plan (n = 8, 7.4%), measures for confidentiality (n = 14, 13.0%), and assessments of similarity between interim stages (n = 25, 23.1%). The mean score of the ACE checklist was 13.9 (standard deviation [SD], 3.5) out of 26. According to our multivariable regression analysis, later published trials (estimated ß = 0.14, p < 0.01) and the multicenter trials (estimated ß = 2.22, p < 0.01) were associated with better reporting. CONCLUSION: Adaptive design has shown an increasing use over the years, and was primarily applied to early phase drug trials. However, the reporting quality of adaptive trials is suboptimal, and substantial efforts are needed to improve the reporting.

Surgical Handover Core Outcome Measures (SH-CORE): a protocol for the development of a core outcome set for trials in surgical handover.

BACKGROUND: Surgical handover is associated with a significant risk of care failures. Existing research displays methodological deficiencies and little consensus on the outcomes that should be used to evaluate interventions in this area. This paper reports a protocol to develop a core outcome set (COS) to support standardisation, comparability, and evidence synthesis in future studies of surgical handover between doctors. METHODS: This study adheres to the Core Outcome Measures in Effectiveness Trials (COMET) initiative guidance for COS development, including the COS-Standards for Development (COS-STAD) and Reporting (COS-STAR) recommendations. It has been registered prospectively on the COMET database and will be led by an international steering group that includes surgical healthcare professionals, researchers, and patient and public partners. An initial list of reported outcomes was generated through a systematic review of interventions to improve surgical handover (PROSPERO: CRD42022363198). Findings of a qualitative evidence synthesis of patient and public perspectives on handover will augment this list, followed by a real-time Delphi survey involving all stakeholder groups. Each Delphi participant will then be invited to take part in at least one online consensus meeting to finalise the COS. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: This study was approved by the Royal College of Surgeons in Ireland (RCSI) Research Ethics Committee (202309015, 7th November 2023). Results will be presented at surgical scientific meetings and submitted to a peer-reviewed journal. A plain English summary will be disseminated through national websites and social media. The authors aim to integrate the COS into the handover curriculum of the Irish national surgical training body and ensure it is shared internationally with other postgraduate surgical training programmes. Collaborators will be encouraged to share the findings with relevant national health service functions and national bodies. DISCUSSION: This study will represent the first published COS for interventions to improve surgical handover, the first use of a real-time Delphi survey in a surgical context, and will support the generation of better-quality evidence to inform best practice. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Core Outcome Measures in Effectiveness Trials (COMET) initiative 2675.  http://www.comet-initiative.org/Studies/Details/2675 .

The reporting quality and spin of randomized controlled trials of endometriosis pain: Methodological study based on CONSORT extension on abstracts.

OBJECTIVE: To assess the reporting quality of published RCT abstracts regarding patients with endometriosis pelvic pain and investigate the prevalence and characteristics of spin in these abstracts. METHODS: PubMed and Scopus were searched for RCT abstracts addressing endometriosis pelvic pain published from January 1st, 2010 to December 1st, 2023.The reporting quality of RCT abstracts was assessed using the CONSORT statement for abstracts. Additionally, spin was evaluated in the results and conclusions section of the abstracts, defined as the misleading reporting of study findings to emphasize the perceived benefits of an intervention or to confound readers from statistically non-significant results. Assessing factors affecting the reporting quality and spin existence, linear and logistic regression was used, respectively. RESULTS: A total of 47 RCT abstracts were included. Out of 16 checklist items, only three items including objective, intervention and conclusions were sufficiently reported in the most abstracts (more than 95%), and none of the abstracts presented precise data as required by the CONSORT-A guidelines. In the reporting quality of material and method section, trial design, type of randomization, the generation of random allocation sequences, the allocation concealment and blinding were most items identified that were suboptimal. The total score for the quality varied between 5 and 15 (mean: 9.59, SD: 3.03, median: 9, IQR: 5). Word count (beta = 0.015, p-value = 0.005) and publishing in open-accessed journals (beta = 2.023, p-value = 0.023) were the significant factors that affecting the reporting quality. Evaluating spin within each included paper, we found that 18 (51.43%) papers had statistically non-significant results. From these studies, 12 (66.66%) had spin in both results and conclusion sections. Furthermore, the spin intensity increased during 2010-2023 and 38.29% of abstracts had spin in both results and conclusion sections. CONCLUSION: Overall poor adherence to CONSORT-A was observed, with spin detected in several RCTs featuring non-significant primary endpoints in obstetrics and gynecology literature.

Using Bayesian statistics in confirmatory clinical trials in the regulatory setting: a tutorial review.

Bayesian statistics plays a pivotal role in advancing medical science by enabling healthcare companies, regulators, and stakeholders to assess the safety and efficacy of new treatments, interventions, and medical procedures. The Bayesian framework offers a unique advantage over the classical framework, especially when incorporating prior information into a new trial with quality external data, such as historical data or another source of co-data. In recent years, there has been a significant increase in regulatory submissions using Bayesian statistics due to its flexibility and ability to provide valuable insights for decision-making, addressing the modern complexity of clinical trials where frequentist trials are inadequate. For regulatory submissions, companies often need to consider the frequentist operating characteristics of the Bayesian analysis strategy, regardless of the design complexity. In particular, the focus is on the frequentist type I error rate and power for all realistic alternatives. This tutorial review aims to provide a comprehensive overview of the use of Bayesian statistics in sample size determination, control of type I error rate, multiplicity adjustments, external data borrowing, etc., in the regulatory environment of clinical trials. Fundamental concepts of Bayesian sample size determination and illustrative examples are provided to serve as a valuable resource for researchers, clinicians, and statisticians seeking to develop more complex and innovative designs.

Retrospective and prospective study designs.

The labels "retrospective" and "prospective" strongly connote study quality, often favouring prospective studies. However, three definitions of these terms exist, each suggesting distinct methodological limitations. In this review, we summarize and evaluate these definitions. Caution is warranted when labeling a study "retrospective": This label should only be used when implying a risk of recall bias, which can only occur in retrospective data collection. Generally, assessing random and systematic errors is necessary to appraise study quality rather than relying on ambiguous labels.

Considerations for using potential surrogate endpoints in cancer screening trials.

The requirement of large-scale expensive cancer screening trials spanning decades creates considerable barriers to the development, commercialisation, and implementation of novel screening tests. One way to address these problems is to use surrogate endpoints for the ultimate endpoint of interest, cancer mortality, at an earlier timepoint. This Review aims to highlight the issues underlying the choice and use of surrogate endpoints for cancer screening trials, to propose criteria for when and how we might use such endpoints, and to suggest possible candidates. We present the current landscape and challenges, and discuss lessons and shortcomings from the therapeutic trial setting. It is hugely challenging to validate a surrogate endpoint, even with carefully designed clinical studies. Nevertheless, we consider whether there are candidates that might satisfy the requirements defined by research and regulatory bodies.

Reporting Standards for Complication Studies of Radiation Therapy for Pediatric Cancer: Lessons From PENTEC.

The major aim of Pediatric Normal Tissue Effects in the Clinic (PENTEC) was to synthesize quantitative published dose/-volume/toxicity data in pediatric radiation therapy. Such systematic reviews are often challenging because of the lack of standardization and difficulty of reporting outcomes, clinical factors, and treatment details in journal articles. This has clinical consequences: optimization of treatment plans must balance between the risks of toxicity and local failure; counseling patients and their parents requires knowledge of the excess risks encountered after a specific treatment. Studies addressing outcomes after pediatric radiation therapy are particularly challenging because: (a) survivors may live for decades after treatment, and the latency time to toxicity can be very long; (b) children's maturation can be affected by radiation, depending on the developmental status of the organs involved at time of treatment; and (c) treatment regimens frequently involve chemotherapies, possibly modifying and adding to the toxicity of radiation. Here we discuss: basic reporting strategies to account for the actuarial nature of the complications; the reporting of modeling of abnormal development; and the need for standardized, comprehensively reported data sets and multivariate models (ie, accounting for the simultaneous effects of radiation dose, age, developmental status at time of treatment, and chemotherapy dose). We encourage the use of tools that facilitate comprehensive reporting, for example, electronic supplements for journal articles. Finally, we stress the need for clinicians to be able to trust artificial intelligence models of outcome of radiation therapy, which requires transparency, rigor, reproducibility, and comprehensive reporting. Adopting the reporting methods discussed here and in the individual PENTEC articles will increase the clinical and scientific usefulness of individual reports and associated pooled analyses.

Misstatements, misperceptions, and mistakes in controlling for covariates in observational research.

We discuss 12 misperceptions, misstatements, or mistakes concerning the use of covariates in observational or nonrandomized research. Additionally, we offer advice to help investigators, editors, reviewers, and readers make more informed decisions about conducting and interpreting research where the influence of covariates may be at issue. We primarily address misperceptions in the context of statistical management of the covariates through various forms of modeling, although we also emphasize design and model or variable selection. Other approaches to addressing the effects of covariates, including matching, have logical extensions from what we discuss here but are not dwelled upon heavily. The misperceptions, misstatements, or mistakes we discuss include accurate representation of covariates, effects of measurement error, overreliance on covariate categorization, underestimation of power loss when controlling for covariates, misinterpretation of significance in statistical models, and misconceptions about confounding variables, selecting on a collider, and p value interpretations in covariate-inclusive analyses. This condensed overview serves to correct common errors and improve research quality in general and in nutrition research specifically.

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.

Alzheimer blood biomarkers: practical guidelines for study design, sample collection, processing, biobanking, measurement and result reporting.

Alzheimer's disease (AD), the most common form of dementia, remains challenging to understand and treat despite decades of research and clinical investigation. This might be partly due to a lack of widely available and cost-effective modalities for diagnosis and prognosis. Recently, the blood-based AD biomarker field has seen significant progress driven by technological advances, mainly improved analytical sensitivity and precision of the assays and measurement platforms. Several blood-based biomarkers have shown high potential for accurately detecting AD pathophysiology. As a result, there has been considerable interest in applying these biomarkers for diagnosis and prognosis, as surrogate metrics to investigate the impact of various covariates on AD pathophysiology and to accelerate AD therapeutic trials and monitor treatment effects. However, the lack of standardization of how blood samples and collected, processed, stored analyzed and reported can affect the reproducibility of these biomarker measurements, potentially hindering progress toward their widespread use in clinical and research settings. To help address these issues, we provide fundamental guidelines developed according to recent research findings on the impact of sample handling on blood biomarker measurements. These guidelines cover important considerations including study design, blood collection, blood processing, biobanking, biomarker measurement, and result reporting. Furthermore, the proposed guidelines include best practices for appropriate blood handling procedures for genetic and ribonucleic acid analyses. While we focus on the key blood-based AD biomarkers for the AT(N) criteria (e.g., amyloid-beta [Aß]40, Aß42, Aß42/40 ratio, total-tau, phosphorylated-tau, neurofilament light chain, brain-derived tau and glial fibrillary acidic protein), we anticipate that these guidelines will generally be applicable to other types of blood biomarkers. We also anticipate that these guidelines will assist investigators in planning and executing biomarker research, enabling harmonization of sample handling to improve comparability across studies.

Patient information leaflets for placebo-controlled surgical trials: a review of current practice and recommendations for developers.

INTRODUCTION: Informed consent for participation in an RCT is an important ethical and legal requirement. In placebo surgical trials, further issues are raised, and to date, this has not been explored. Patient information leaflets (PILs) are a core component of the informed consent process. This study aimed to investigate the key content of PILs for recently completed placebo-controlled trials of invasive procedures, including surgery, to highlight areas of good practice, identify gaps in information provision for trials of this type and provide recommendations for practice. METHODS: PILs were sought from trials included in a recent systematic review of placebo-controlled trials of invasive procedures, including surgery. Trial characteristics and data on surgical and placebo interventions under evaluation were extracted. Directed content analysis was applied, informed by published regulatory and good practice guidance on PIL content and existing research on placebo-controlled surgical trials. Results were analysed using descriptive statistics and presented as a narrative summary. RESULTS: Of the 62 eligible RCTs, authors of 59 trials were contactable and 14 PILs were received for analysis. At least 50% of all PILs included content on general trial design. Explanations of how the placebo differs or is similar to the surgical intervention (i.e. fidelity) were reported in 6 (43%) of the included PILs. Over half (57%) of the PILs included information on the potential therapeutic benefits of the surgical intervention. One (7%) included information on potential indirect therapeutic benefits from invasive components of the placebo. Five (36%) presented the known risks of the placebo intervention, whilst 8 (57%) presented information on the known risks of the surgical intervention. A range of terms was used across the PILs to describe the placebo component, including 'control', 'mock' and 'sham'. CONCLUSION: Developers of PILs for placebo-controlled surgical trials should carefully consider the use of language (e.g. sham, mock), be explicit about how the placebo differs (or is similar) to the surgical intervention and provide balanced presentations of potential benefits and risks of the surgical intervention separately from the placebo. Further research is required to determine optimal approaches to design and deliver this information for these trials.