Enhancing The QUAlity And Transparency Of Health Research Research Articles

Guideline for reporting systematic reviews of outcome measurement instruments (OMIs): PRISMA-COSMIN for OMIs 2024

PurposeAlthough comprehensive and widespread guidelines on how to conduct systematic reviews of outcome measurement instruments (OMIs) exist, for example from the COSMIN (COnsensus-based Standards for the selection of health Measurement INstruments) initiative, key information is often missing in published reports. This article describes the development of an extension of the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) 2020 guideline: PRISMA-COSMIN for OMIs 2024.MethodsThe development process followed the Enhancing the QUAlity and Transparency Of health Research (EQUATOR) guidelines and included a literature search, expert consultations, a Delphi study, a hybrid workgroup meeting, pilot testing, and an end-of-project meeting, with integrated patient/public involvement.ResultsFrom the literature and expert consultation, 49 potentially relevant reporting items were identified. Round 1 of the Delphi study was completed by 103 panelists, whereas round 2 and 3 were completed by 78 panelists. After 3 rounds, agreement (≥ 67%) on inclusion and wording was reached for 44 items. Eleven items without consensus for inclusion and/or wording were discussed at a workgroup meeting attended by 24 participants. Agreement was reached for the inclusion and wording of 10 items, and the deletion of 1 item. Pilot testing with 65 authors of OMI systematic reviews further improved the guideline through minor changes in wording and structure, finalized during the end-of-project meeting. The final checklist to facilitate the reporting of full systematic review reports contains 54 (sub)items addressing the review’s title, abstract, plain language summary, open science, introduction, methods, results, and discussion. Thirteen items pertaining to the title and abstract are also included in a separate abstract checklist, guiding authors in reporting for example conference abstracts.ConclusionPRISMA-COSMIN for OMIs 2024 consists of two checklists (full reports; abstracts), their corresponding explanation and elaboration documents detailing the rationale and examples for each item, and a data flow diagram. PRISMA-COSMIN for OMIs 2024 can improve the reporting of systematic reviews of OMIs, fostering their reproducibility and allowing end-users to appraise the quality of OMIs and select the most appropriate OMI for a specific application.NoteIn order to encourage its wide dissemination this article is freely accessible on the web sites of the journals: Health and Quality of Life Outcomes; Journal of Clinical Epidemiology; Journal of Patient-Reported Outcomes; Quality of Life Research.

Guideline for reporting systematic reviews of outcome measurement instruments (OMIs): PRISMA-COSMIN for OMIs 2024

PurposeAlthough comprehensive and widespread guidelines on how to conduct systematic reviews of outcome measurement instruments (OMIs) exist, for example from the COSMIN (COnsensus-based Standards for the selection of health Measurement INstruments) initiative, key information is often missing in published reports. This article describes the development of an extension of the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) 2020 guideline: PRISMA-COSMIN for OMIs 2024.MethodsThe development process followed the Enhancing the QUAlity and Transparency Of health Research (EQUATOR) guidelines and included a literature search, expert consultations, a Delphi study, a hybrid workgroup meeting, pilot testing, and an end-of-project meeting, with integrated patient/public involvement.ResultsFrom the literature and expert consultation, 49 potentially relevant reporting items were identified. Round 1 of the Delphi study was completed by 103 panelists, whereas round 2 and 3 were completed by 78 panelists. After 3 rounds, agreement (≥ 67%) on inclusion and wording was reached for 44 items. Eleven items without consensus for inclusion and/or wording were discussed at a workgroup meeting attended by 24 participants. Agreement was reached for the inclusion and wording of 10 items, and the deletion of 1 item. Pilot testing with 65 authors of OMI systematic reviews further improved the guideline through minor changes in wording and structure, finalized during the end-of-project meeting. The final checklist to facilitate the reporting of full systematic review reports contains 54 (sub)items addressing the review’s title, abstract, plain language summary, open science, introduction, methods, results, and discussion. Thirteen items pertaining to the title and abstract are also included in a separate abstract checklist, guiding authors in reporting for example conference abstracts.ConclusionPRISMA-COSMIN for OMIs 2024 consists of two checklists (full reports; abstracts), their corresponding explanation and elaboration documents detailing the rationale and examples for each item, and a data flow diagram. PRISMA-COSMIN for OMIs 2024 can improve the reporting of systematic reviews of OMIs, fostering their reproducibility and allowing end-users to appraise the quality of OMIs and select the most appropriate OMI for a specific application.NoteIn order to encourage its wide dissemination this article is freely accessible on the web sites of the journals: Health and Quality of Life Outcomes; Journal of Clinical Epidemiology; Journal of Patient-Reported Outcomes; Quality of Life Research.

Guideline for reporting systematic reviews of outcome measurement instruments (OMIs): PRISMA-COSMIN for OMIs 2024

PurposeAlthough comprehensive and widespread guidelines on how to conduct systematic reviews of outcome measurement instruments (OMIs) exist, for example from the COSMIN (COnsensus-based Standards for the selection of health Measurement INstruments) initiative, key information is often missing in published reports. This article describes the development of an extension of the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) 2020 guideline: PRISMA-COSMIN for OMIs 2024.MethodsThe development process followed the Enhancing the QUAlity and Transparency Of health Research (EQUATOR) guidelines and included a literature search, expert consultations, a Delphi study, a hybrid workgroup meeting, pilot testing, and an end-of-project meeting, with integrated patient/public involvement.ResultsFrom the literature and expert consultation, 49 potentially relevant reporting items were identified. Round 1 of the Delphi study was completed by 103 panelists, whereas round 2 and 3 were completed by 78 panelists. After 3 rounds, agreement (≥67%) on inclusion and wording was reached for 44 items. Eleven items without consensus for inclusion and/or wording were discussed at a workgroup meeting attended by 24 participants. Agreement was reached for the inclusion and wording of 10 items, and the deletion of 1 item. Pilot testing with 65 authors of OMI systematic reviews further improved the guideline through minor changes in wording and structure, finalized during the end-of-project meeting. The final checklist to facilitate the reporting of full systematic review reports contains 54 (sub)items addressing the review’s title, abstract, plain language summary, open science, introduction, methods, results, and discussion. Thirteen items pertaining to the title and abstract are also included in a separate abstract checklist, guiding authors in reporting for example conference abstracts.ConclusionPRISMA-COSMIN for OMIs 2024 consists of two checklists (full reports; abstracts), their corresponding explanation and elaboration documents detailing the rationale and examples for each item, and a data flow diagram. PRISMA-COSMIN for OMIs 2024 can improve the reporting of systematic reviews of OMIs, fostering their reproducibility and allowing end-users to appraise the quality of OMIs and select the most appropriate OMI for a specific application.NoteIn order to encourage its wide dissemination this article is freely accessible on the web sites of the journals: Health and Quality of Life Outcomes; Journal of Clinical Epidemiology; Journal of Patient-Reported Outcomes; Quality of Life Research.

Reporting Conflicts of Interest and Funding in Health Care Guidelines: The RIGHT-COI&F Checklist.

Conflicts of interest (COIs) of contributors to a guideline project and the funding of that project can influence the development of the guideline. Comprehensive reporting of information on COIs and funding is essential for the transparency and credibility of guidelines. To develop an extension of the Reporting Items for practice Guidelines in HealThcare (RIGHT) statement for the reporting of COIs and funding in policy documents of guideline organizations and in guidelines: the RIGHT-COI&F checklist. The recommendations of the Enhancing the QUAlity and Transparency Of health Research (EQUATOR) network were followed. The process consisted of registration of the project and setting up working groups, generation of the initial list of items, achieving consensus on the items, and formulating and testing the final checklist. International collaboration. 44 experts. Consensus on checklist items. The checklist contains 27 items: 18 about the COIs of contributors and 9 about the funding of the guideline project. Of the 27 items, 16 are labeled as policy related because they address the reporting of COI and funding policies that apply across an organization's guideline projects. These items should be described ideally in the organization's policy documents, otherwise in the specific guideline. The remaining 11 items are labeled as implementation related and they address the reporting of COIs and funding of the specific guideline. The RIGHT-COI&F checklist requires testing in real-life use. The RIGHT-COI&F checklist can be used to guide the reporting of COIs and funding in guideline development and to assess the completeness of reporting in published guidelines and policy documents. The Fundamental Research Funds for the Central Universities of China.

Evaluation of venous thromboembolism risk assessment models for hospital inpatients: the VTEAM evidence synthesis.

Pharmacological prophylaxis during hospital admission can reduce the risk of acquired blood clots (venous thromboembolism) but may cause complications, such as bleeding. Using a risk assessment model to predict the risk of blood clots could facilitate selection of patients for prophylaxis and optimise the balance of benefits, risks and costs. We aimed to identify validated risk assessment models and estimate their prognostic accuracy, evaluate the cost-effectiveness of different strategies for selecting hospitalised patients for prophylaxis, assess the feasibility of using efficient research methods and estimate key parameters for future research. We undertook a systematic review, decision-analytic modelling and observational cohort study conducted in accordance with Enhancing the QUAlity and Transparency Of health Research (EQUATOR) guidelines. NHS hospitals, with primary data collection at four sites. Medical and surgical hospital inpatients, excluding paediatric, critical care and pregnancy-related admissions. Prophylaxis for all patients, none and according to selected risk assessment models. Model accuracy for predicting blood clots, lifetime costs and quality-adjusted life-years associated with alternative strategies, accuracy of efficient methods for identifying key outcomes and proportion of inpatients recommended prophylaxis using different models. We identified 24 validated risk assessment models, but low-quality heterogeneous data suggested weak accuracy for prediction of blood clots and generally high risk of bias in all studies. Decision-analytic modelling showed that pharmacological prophylaxis for all eligible is generally more cost-effective than model-based strategies for both medical and surgical inpatients, when valuing a quality-adjusted life-year at £20,000. The findings were more sensitive to uncertainties in the surgical population; strategies using risk assessment models were more cost-effective if the model was assumed to have a very high sensitivity, or the long-term risks of post-thrombotic complications were lower. Efficient methods using routine data did not accurately identify blood clots or bleeding events and several pre-specified feasibility criteria were not met. Theoretical prophylaxis rates across an inpatient cohort based on existing risk assessment models ranged from 13% to 91%. Existing studies may underestimate the accuracy of risk assessment models, leading to underestimation of their cost-effectiveness. The cost-effectiveness findings do not apply to patients with an increased risk of bleeding. Mechanical thromboprophylaxis options were excluded from the modelling. Primary data collection was predominately retrospective, risking case ascertainment bias. Thromboprophylaxis for all patients appears to be generally more cost-effective than using a risk assessment model, in hospitalised patients at low risk of bleeding. To be cost-effective, any risk assessment model would need to be highly sensitive. Current evidence on risk assessment models is at high risk of bias and our findings should be interpreted in this context. We were unable to demonstrate the feasibility of using efficient methods to accurately detect relevant outcomes for future research. Further research should evaluate routine prophylaxis strategies for all eligible hospitalised patients. Models that could accurately identify individuals at very low risk of blood clots (who could discontinue prophylaxis) warrant further evaluation. This study is registered as PROSPERO CRD42020165778 and Researchregistry5216. This award was funded by the National Institute for Health and Care Research (NIHR) Health Technology Assessment programme (NIHR award ref: NIHR127454) and will be published in full in Health Technology Assessment; Vol. 28, No. 20. See the NIHR Funding and Awards website for further award information.

Extending the Reporting Items of Practice Guidelines in Healthcare (RIGHT) statement for reporting Chinese patent medicine guidelines: a protocol

Background: Based on the main document of the Reporting Items of Practice Guidelines in Healthcare (RIGHT) statement, this study will aim to develop the reporting checklist applicable to the guidelines of Chinese patent medicine (CPM). Methods: According to the methodology recommended by the Enhancing the QUAlity and Transparency Of health Research (EQUATOR) network, three well-defined working groups were established, namely the coordination team, the advisory group, and the Delphi panel. The coordination team conducted a literature analysis of the already published CPM guidelines, the extensions of the RIGHT statement, and CPM related reporting specifications to initially form an initial item pool. The Delphi panel of multidisciplinary backgrounds will conduct two rounds of Delphi questionnaires to identify an extension item for RIGHT for CPM. These questionnaires will be sent to each Delphi panel member via email, and each member will independently fill out and provide comments within 10 working days of receiving the questionnaire. Finally, feedback will be provided to the coordination team and the post efficacy assessment of the already published clinical practice guidelines for CPM to determine the final items for RIGHT for CPM checklist. Dissemination: The extended version of the RIGHT for CPM checklist will be published in a peer reviewed journal. Conclusion: We hope that the upcoming RIGHT for CPM checklist provides detailed guidance for developers and users of CPM guidelines, further improving the quality of reports, and promoting the effective dissemination and implementation of CPM guidelines.

What factors facilitate partnerships between higher education and local mental health services for students? A case study collective

BackgroundHigher education institutions face challenges in providing effective mental health services for diverse student needs. In the UK, discrepancies between healthcare and education service provision create barriers for students and...

Author instructions in biomedical journals infrequently address systematic review reporting and methodology: a cross-sectional study

ObjectivesWe aimed to analyze how instructions for authors in journals indexed in MEDLINE address systematic review (SR) reporting and methodology. Study Design and SettingWe analyzed instructions for authors in 20% of MEDLINE-indexed journals listed in the online catalog of the National Library of Medicine on July 27, 2021. We extracted data only from the instructions published in English. We extracted data on the existence of instructions for reporting and methodology of SRs. ResultsInstructions from 1,237 journals mentioned SRs in 45% (n = 560) of the cases. Systematic review (SR) registration was mentioned in 104/1,237 (8%) of instructions. Guidelines for reporting SR protocols were found in 155/1,237 (13%) of instructions. Guidelines for reporting SRs were explicitly mentioned in 461/1,237 (37%), whereas the EQUATOR (Enhancing the Quality and Transparency of Health Research) network was referred to in 474/1,237 (38%) of instructions. Less than 2% (n = 20) of instructions mentioned risk of bias and meta-analyses; less than 1% mentioned certainty of evidence assessment, methodological expectations, updating of SRs, overviews of SRs, or scoping reviews. ConclusionJournals indexed in MEDLINE rarely provide instructions for authors regarding SR reporting and methodology. Such instructions could potentially raise authors' awareness and improve how SRs are prepared and reported.

Inclusion of sex and gender instructions to authors and SAGER guidelines recommendations across highest impact oncology journals.

182 Background: The notion of sex and gender is constantly evolving through many disciplines. In medical oncology, disease behavior and treatment modalities have been shown to impact men and women differently. Sex and gender-tailored clinical research in oncology could promote a better understanding of disease progression and interpretation of clinical trials. The Guidelines for Sex and Gender Equity in Research (SAGER) promote the specification of sex and gender in any given manuscript. The Enhancing the Quality and Transparency of Health Research (EQUATOR) Network promotes the wider use of 575 guidelines, which SAGER is a part of. We sought to determine the frequency in which SAGER Guidelines and the EQUATOR network are referenced in the instructions to authors of the top 100 medical oncology journals with the highest impact factor. Methods: We identified the top 100 medical oncology journals with the highest impact factor. For each, we revised their instructions to authors' material and recorded the frequency with which they referenced SAGER guidelines, the EQUATOR network, or sex and gender recommendations. Results: Median value of the (N=100) journal´s impact factor was 7.47 (range 4.8 – 286.1). Overall, 28 journals mentioned SAGER guidelines, 31 mentioned the EQUATOR network, and 37 mentioned sex and gender. Of the 28 journals that mention SAGER guidelines, 27 also mention sex and gender in their instructions to authors. A total of 12 journals mentioned both SAGER and the EQUATOR network in their instructions to authors. We dichotomized the IF value into “journals with a high impact factor” (≥10 IF) (n=31) and “journals with a low impact factor” (<10) (n=69). SAGER was mentioned in 7 (22.5%) high-impact factor journals and 21 (30.4%) low-impact factor journals. The EQUATOR network was mentioned in 8 (25.8%) high-impact factor journals and 23 (33.3%) low-impact factor journals. Sex and gender was mentioned in 12 (38.7%) high-impact factor journals and 25 (36.2%) low-impact factor journals. Conclusions: Most oncology journals still warrant consideration for appropriate sex and gender recommendations. Guidelines like SAGER and EQUATOR are still commonly overlooked in instructions to authors. Consideration for this is paramount in oncology studies, as sex and gender-tailored research could impact disease biology and treatment understanding in oncology.

Guidelines and Standard Frameworks for AI in Medicine: Protocol for a Systematic Literature Review.

Applications of artificial intelligence (AI) are pervasive in modern biomedical science. In fact, research results suggesting algorithms and AI models for different target diseases and conditions are continuously increasing. While this situation undoubtedly improves the outcome of AI models, health care providers are increasingly unsure which AI model to use due to multiple alternatives for a specific target and the "black box" nature of AI. Moreover, the fact that studies rarely use guidelines in developing and reporting AI models poses additional challenges in trusting and adapting models for practical implementation. This review protocol describes the planned steps and methods for a review of the synthesized evidence regarding the quality of available guidelines and frameworks to facilitate AI applications in medicine. We will commence a systematic literature search using medical subject headings terms for medicine, guidelines, and machine learning (ML). All available guidelines, standard frameworks, best practices, checklists, and recommendations will be included, irrespective of the study design. The search will be conducted on web-based repositories such as PubMed, Web of Science, and the EQUATOR (Enhancing the Quality and Transparency of Health Research) network. After removing duplicate results, a preliminary scan for titles will be done by 2 reviewers. After the first scan, the reviewers will rescan the selected literature for abstract review, and any incongruities about whether to include the article for full-text review or not will be resolved by the third and fourth reviewer based on the predefined criteria. A Google Scholar (Google LLC) search will also be performed to identify gray literature. The quality of identified guidelines will be evaluated using the Appraisal of Guidelines, Research, and Evaluation (AGREE II) tool. A descriptive summary and narrative synthesis will be carried out, and the details of critical appraisal and subgroup synthesis findings will be presented. The results will be reported using the PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Review and Meta-Analyses) reporting guidelines. Data analysis is currently underway, and we anticipate finalizing the review by November 2023. Guidelines and recommended frameworks for developing, reporting, and implementing AI studies have been developed by different experts to facilitate the reliable assessment of validity and consistent interpretation of ML models for medical applications. We postulate that a guideline supports the assessment of an ML model only if the quality and reliability of the guideline are high. Assessing the quality and aspects of available guidelines, recommendations, checklists, and frameworks-as will be done in the proposed review-will provide comprehensive insights into current gaps and help to formulate future research directions. DERR1-10.2196/47105.

Increased endorsement of TRIPOD and other reporting guidelines by high impact factor journals: survey of instructions to authors

ObjectivesTo assess the endorsement of reporting guidelines by high impact factor journals over the period 2017–2022, with a specific focus on the Transparent Reporting of a multivariable prediction model for Individual Prognosis Or Diagnosis (TRIPOD) statement. Study Design and SettingWe searched the online ‘instructions to authors’ of high impact factor medical journals in February 2017 and in January 2022 for any reference to reporting guidelines and TRIPOD in particular. ResultsIn 2017, 205 out of 337 (61%) journals mentioned any reporting guideline in their instructions to authors and in 2022 this increased to 245 (73%) journals. A reference to TRIPOD was provided by 27 (8%) journals in 2017 and 67 (20%) in 2022. Of those journals mentioning TRIPOD in 2022, 22% provided a link to the TRIPOD website and 60% linked to TRIPOD information on the Enhancing the QUAlity and Transparency Of health Research (EQUATOR) Network website. Twenty-five percent of the journals required adherence to TRIPOD. ConclusionAbout three-quarters of high-impact medical journals endorse the use of reporting guidelines and 20% endorse TRIPOD. Transparent reporting is important in enhancing the usefulness of health research and endorsement by journals plays a critical role in this.

A Survey of Submission and Review Standards across Clinical Radiation Oncology and Medical Physics Journals: Devising the Optimal Criteria for Reproducibility and Sustained Impact

Publishing and editorial policies differ substantially across the Radiation Oncology (RO) and Medical Physics (MedPhys) compendium of journals. Adoptance of modern standards in scientific publishing and data sharing have the potential to improve the impact and reliability of the RO literature. We characterized the editorial, authorship and peer reviewer policies of various prominent clinical RO (N = 16) and medical physics (N = 9) peer-reviewed journals affiliated with professional societies for characteristics that are associated with improved reproducibility and rigorous review. A combination of tools including Enhancing the QUAlity and Transparency Of health Research (EQUATOR), Findability, Accessibility, Interoperability, and Reuse (FAIR), and Quality Output Checklist and Content Assessment (QuOCCA) principles were used to quantify the value and reproducibility of journal policies. Cohen's kappa coefficient was utilized to assess agreement between reviewers. Components of the above tools were regressed against various scientometric indices (H-index, IF, etc.) to identify factors that are associated with perceived relative importance within the field. Reviewer agreement (κ) for scientometric indices was highest (1.0) for criteria for statistical review and data submission standards and lowest (-0.246) for various submission checklists. Data availability statements were endorsed (44%) or required (31%) in a higher proportion of RO journals relative to MedPhys journals (44%, 0% respectively). Data repository submission was required in <10% of journals. FAIR adoptance was poor (31%, 22%) in RO and MedPhys journals. ≥1 EQUATOR guideline checklist was endorsed or required in 76% of journals. While there were no glaring differences in editorial policies between RO and MedPhys journals, there was substantial heterogeneity of scientometrics evaluating the rigor of data submission, reproducibility standards, and statistical review criteria. Linear regression of journal impact factors indicated a predictive relationship between FAIR adoption standards, use of EQUATOR checklists, and more rigorous statistical method submission criteria. The present review documented and confirmed significant variation in submission, review, and publication policies across RO and MedPhys journals. Established scientometric standards, FAIR principle adoptance, and more rigorous statistical methodology were predictive of increasing journal impact factor.

The SUPER reporting guideline suggested for reporting of surgical technique.

Existing reporting guidelines pay insufficient attention to the detail and comprehensiveness reporting of surgical technique. The Surgical techniqUe rePorting chEcklist and standaRds (SUPER) aims to address this gap by defining reporting standards for surgical technique. The SUPER guideline intends to apply to articles that encompass surgical technique in any study design, surgical discipline, and stage of surgical innovation. Following the EQUATOR (Enhancing the QUAlity and Transparency Of health Research) Network approach, 16 surgeons, journal editors, and methodologists reviewed existing reporting guidelines relating to surgical technique, reviewed papers from 15 top journals, and brainstormed to draft initial items for the SUPER. The initial items were revised through a three-round Delphi survey from 21 multidisciplinary Delphi panel experts from 13 countries and regions. The final SUPER items were formed after an online consensus meeting to resolve disagreements and a three-round wording refinement by all 16 SUPER working group members and five SUPER consultants. The SUPER reporting guideline includes 22 items that are considered essential for good and informative surgical technique reporting. The items are divided into six sections: background, rationale, and objectives (items 1 to 5); preoperative preparations and requirements (items 6 to 9); surgical technique details (items 10 to 15); postoperative considerations and tasks (items 16 to 19); summary and prospect (items 20 and 21); and other information (item 22). The SUPER reporting guideline has the potential to guide detailed, comprehensive, and transparent surgical technique reporting for surgeons. It may also assist journal editors, peer reviewers, systematic reviewers, and guideline developers in the evaluation of surgical technique papers and help practitioners to better understand and reproduce surgical technique. https://www.equator-network.org/library/reporting-guidelines-under-development/reporting-guidelines-under-development-for-other-study-designs/#SUPER.

Protocol for the development of a reporting guideline for clinical trials with integrated Chinese and western medicine interventions: the CONSORT extension for ICWM.

While Integrated Chinese and Western Medicine (ICWM) has become widely accepted as a necessary intervention for treating various diseases, key information about ICWM interventions is often missing in published clinical trials. To facilitate complete, transparent, and consistent reporting of clinical trials with ICWM interventions, an extension of the CONSORT guideline is necessary to be developed: the CONSORT-ICWM guideline. The CONSORT-ICWM guideline will be developed in five stages in accordance with recommendations for the development of reporting guidelines from the EQUATOR (Enhancing the QUAlity and Transparency Of health Research) Network, including (1) project launch and registration; (2) literature review and checklist draft; (3) Delphi survey; (4) consensus meeting; and (5) finalization of the guideline. Additionally, the working group will be composed of professors with expertise in integrated medicines, traditional Chinese medicines, biomedical informatics, statistics, methodology, development of reporting guidelines, epidemiology, health economics, and paper publications. The CONSORT-ICWM guideline is to improve the reporting quality of clinical trials with ICWM interventions by ensuring the reports are complete, informative, clear, and transparent.

ESICM guidelines on acute respiratory distress syndrome: definition, phenotyping and respiratory support strategies.

The aim of these guidelines is to update the 2017 clinical practice guideline (CPG) of the European Society of Intensive Care Medicine (ESICM). The scope of this CPG is limited to adult patients and to non-pharmacological respiratory support strategies across different aspects of acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS), including ARDS due to coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). These guidelines were formulated by an international panel of clinical experts, one methodologist and patients' representatives on behalf of the ESICM. The review was conducted in compliance with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) statement recommendations. We followed the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) approach to assess the certainty of evidence and grade recommendations and the quality of reporting of each study based on the EQUATOR (Enhancing the QUAlity and Transparency Of health Research) network guidelines. The CPG addressed 21 questions and formulates 21 recommendations on the following domains: (1) definition; (2) phenotyping, and respiratory support strategies including (3) high-flow nasal cannula oxygen (HFNO); (4) non-invasive ventilation (NIV); (5) tidal volume setting; (6) positive end-expiratory pressure (PEEP) and recruitment maneuvers (RM); (7) prone positioning; (8) neuromuscular blockade, and (9) extracorporeal life support (ECLS). In addition, the CPG includes expert opinion on clinical practice and identifies the areas of future research.

A comprehensive systematic scoping review for physiotherapy interventions for people living with long COVID

Background: A diverse spectrum of long COVID symptoms (LCS) have the scope of physical rehabilitation. Due to limited resources, very little is known about the physiotherapy and rehabilitation interventions for LCS and their clinical application. This study aims to explore the role of physiotherapy and rehabilitation interventions in the management of musculoskeletal, neurological, cognitive, cardiorespiratory, mental health, and functional impairments of LCS. Methods: The study was a systematic scoping review of the literature published between April 2020 and July 2022. Results: 87 articles were extracted followed by a standard process of The Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and meta-analysis (PRISMA) extension for Scoping reviews (PRISMA-ScR). The included studies had a 3223 LCS population. All types of primary and secondary articles were retrieved except for qualitative studies. The evidence was evaluated by an appraisal scoring tool followed by the guidelines of the “Enhancing the Quality and Transparency of Health Research ( EQUATOR) network”. The included papers had a mean appraisal score of 0.7807 on a 0 to 1 scale (SD 0.08), the minimum score was for study protocols (0.5870), and the maximum score was for Cohort studies (.8977). Sixty seven (67) evidence-based interventions were documented from 17 clinical categories. The most weighted interventions were treating underlying symptoms of long COVID (Adjusted score 1/1), management of fatigue (Adjusted score 0.963/1), aerobic exercise and balance training (Adjusted score 0.951/1), multidisciplinary rehabilitation (Adjusted score 0.926/1), and low resistance training and aerobic exercise (Adjusted score 0.889/1). Conclusion: We recommend Long COVID rehabilitation in a multidisciplinary approach by treating the individual symptoms, especially fatigue. Physiotherapy interventions play a significant role as most of the recommended interventions were exercise, modalities, patient education, respiratory rehabilitation, and telerehabilitation Scoping reviews do not require protocol registration from PROSPERO.

A comprehensive systematic scoping review for physiotherapy interventions for people living with long COVID

Background:A diverse spectrum of long COVID symptoms (LCS) have the scope of physical rehabilitation. Due to limited resources, very little is known about the physiotherapy and rehabilitation interventions for LCS and their clinical application. This study aims to explore the role of physiotherapy and rehabilitation interventions in the management of musculoskeletal, neurological, cognitive, cardiorespiratory, mental health, and functional impairments of LCS.Methods:The study was a systematic scoping review of the literature published between April 2020 and July 2022.Results:87 articles were extracted followed by a standard process of The Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and meta-analysis (PRISMA) extension for Scoping reviews (PRISMA-ScR). The included studies had a 3223 LCS population. All types of primary and secondary articles were retrieved except for qualitative studies. The evidence was evaluated by an appraisal scoring tool followed by the guidelines of the “Enhancing the Quality and Transparency of health Research (EQUATOR) network”. The included papers had a mean appraisal score of 0.7807 on a 0 to 1 scale (SD 0.08), the minimum score was for study protocols (0.5870), and the maximum score was for Cohort studies (.8977). Sixty seven (67) evidence-based interventions were documented from 17 clinical categories.Conclusion:LCS can be treated by physiotherapy, exercise, and physical rehabilitation for musculoskeletal, neurological, cognitive, cardio-respiratory, mental health, and functional impairments at home or in clinical setups such as primary care settings by in-person care or telerehabilitation.

Reporting guidelines used varying methodology to develop recommendations

Background and ObjectivesWe investigated the developing methods of reporting guidelines in the EQUATOR (Enhancing the QUAlity and Transparency Of health Research) Network's database. MethodsIn October 2018, we screened all records and excluded those not describing reporting guidelines from further investigation. Twelve researchers performed duplicate data extraction on bibliometrics, scope, development methods, presentation, and dissemination of all publications. Descriptive statistics were used to summarize the findings. ResultsOf the 405 screened records, 262 described a reporting guidelines development. The number of reporting guidelines increased over the past 3 decades, from 5 in the 1990s and 63 in the 2000s to 157 in the 2010s. Development groups included 2–151 people. Literature appraisal was performed during the development of 56% of the reporting guidelines; 33% used surveys to gather external opinion on items to report; and 42% piloted or sought external feedback on their recommendations. Examples of good reporting for all reporting items were presented in 30% of the reporting guidelines. Eighteen percent of the reviewed publications included some level of spin. ConclusionReporting guidelines have been developed with varying methodology. Reporting guideline developers should use existing guidance and take an evidence-based approach, rather than base their recommendations on expert opinion of limited groups of individuals.

STandards for Reporting Interventions in Clinical Trials Of Tuina/Massage (STRICTOTM): Extending the CONSORT statement.

Massage is a common therapy of nonpharmacological treatments, particularly in Tuina (Chinese massage) as its most common style, detailed guidance in reporting the intervention is warranted for its evaluation and replication. Based on the CONSORT (Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials), we aimed to develop an Extension for Tuina/Massage, namely "The STandards for Reporting Interventions in Clinical Trials Of Tuina/Massage (STRICTOTM)." A group of professional clinicians, trialists, methodologists, developers of reporting guidelines, epidemiologists, statisticians, and editors has developed this STRICTOTM checklist through a standard methodology process recommended by the EQUATOR (Enhancing the QUAlity and Transparency of Health Research) Network, including prospective registration, literature review, draft of the initial items, three rounds of the Delphi survey, consensus meeting, pilot test, and finalization of the guideline. A checklist of seven items (namely Tuina/Massage rationale, details of Tuina/Massage, intervention regimen, other components of the intervention, Tuina/Massage provider background, control or comparator interventions, and precaution measures), and 16 subitems were developed. Explanations and examples (E&E) for each item are also provided. The working group hopes that the STRICTOTM, in conjunction with both the CONSORT statement and extension for nonpharmacologic treatment, can improve the reporting quality and transparency of Tuina/Massage clinical research.

A cross-sectional analysis identified co-authorship networks and scientific collaboration on reporting guidelines for health research

ObjectivesTo investigate scientific collaboration and citation metrics of reporting guidelines for health research. Study Design and SettingA cross-sectional analysis of published articles of reporting guidelines for health research. A search of the EQUATOR (Enhancing the QUAlity and Transparency Of health Research) Network Library (from inception to January 21, 2021) was supplemented by searching websites of guideline developers. For each article, metadata (e.g., authors, institutions, countries, citations) were extracted from the Web of Science and Scopus (up to October 25, 2021). Descriptive analyses were conducted. Network analyses of collaborations were presented. ResultsWe included 662 articles published in 332 journals. The BMJ (n = 50 articles; 8%), Annals of Internal Medicine (n = 29; 4%), and Journal of Clinical Epidemiology (n = 24; 4%) published the largest number of articles. Four thousand seven hundred twenty two authors, 1,647 institutions, and 83 countries were involved. The global productivity was led by the United States (n = 456 articles), the United Kingdom (n = 414), and Canada (n = 306). We found eight clusters of authors (e.g., one major group with 337 members) and three clusters of institutions (e.g., one major group with 256 members). The most prolific authors were affiliated with the Ottawa Hospital Research Institute (Canada), the University of Ottawa (Canada), the University of Oxford (the United Kingdom), and Stanford University (the United States). ConclusionOur analysis identified key actors producing reporting guidelines, most intense collaborations, and ‘citation classics’ in the field. These results could potentially be used to strengthen collaborations for developing and disseminating reporting guidelines for health research.