Search

Objectives: Most first-time biomedical research grant applications are not funded. In the challenging research funding climate, resubmitting a grant application is a necessary task for scientists. Identifying which factors influence their decision to resubmit and the success of resubmissions will inform funders and applicants. However, data on resubmissions are fragmented and under-reported. In this scoping review, we aimed to summarise (1) the outcomes of resubmitting biomedical research grant applications and (2) the demographic characteristics of scientists who resubmitted grant applications., Design: Scoping review with reporting informed by the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses., Data Sources: MEDLINE, CINAHL, EMBASE, Cochrane Central Registrar of Controlled Trials CENTRAL, PsycINFO, Web of Science and grey literature sources were searched through November 2022., Eligibility Criteria: We included peer-reviewed and grey literature records from the biomedical sciences that reported outcomes of the resubmission process (eg, resubmission success rate, rate of resubmission) and information about the scientists who resubmit grant applications (eg, sex, race, career stage)., Data Extraction and Synthesis: Data were extracted independently by two reviewers. The data were cross-referenced and any conflicts were resolved via consensus. Data were summarised descriptively and presented in tables and figures., Results: Resubmissions represented a substantial proportion of applications (lowest prevalence rate: 4%; highest prevalence rate: 56%) in a given funding cycle and were reliably more successful than first-time applications (lowest success rate: 16%; highest success rate: 82%)-a phenomenon associated with several sociodemographic, institutional and project-related factors. There was conflicting evidence about the relationship of sociodemographic-related, institution-related and project-related factors to resubmission likelihood and success., Conclusion: The resubmission process is a time-consuming and often frustrating experience for researchers. Our review identified opportunities to streamline and improve the process to enhance the biomedical research landscape., Competing Interests: Competing interests: None declared., (© Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2024. Re-use permitted under CC BY-NC. No commercial re-use. See rights and permissions. Published by BMJ.)

Competing Interests: Each author certifies that there are no funding or commercial associations (consultancies, stock ownership, equity interest, patent/licensing arrangements, etc.) that might pose a conflict of interest in connection with the submitted article related to the author or any immediate family members. All ICMJE Conflict of Interest Forms for authors and Clinical Orthopaedics and Related Research® editors and board members are on file with the publication and can be viewed on request.

Making return-to-sport decisions can be complex and multi-faceted, as it requires an evaluation of an individual's physical, psychological, and social well-being. Specifically, the timing of progression, regression, or return to sport can be difficult to determine due to the multitude of information that needs to be considered by clinicians. With the advent of new sports technology, the increasing volume of data poses a challenge to clinicians in effectively processing and utilising it to enhance the quality of their decisions. To gain a deeper understanding of the mechanisms underlying human decision making and associated biases, this narrative review provides a brief overview of different decision-making models that are relevant to sports rehabilitation settings. Accordingly, decisions can be made intuitively, analytically, and/or with heuristics. This narrative review demonstrates how the decision-making models can be applied in the context of return-to-sport decisions and shed light on strategies that may help clinicians improve decision quality., (© 2024. The Author(s).)

BACKGROUND: The Lancet Low Back Pain (LBP) Series highlighted the lack of LBP data from low- and middle-income countries (LMICs). The study aimed to describe (1) what LBP care is currently delivered in LMICs and (2) how that care is delivered. DESIGN: An online mixed-methods study. METHODS: A Consortium for LBP in LMICs (n = 65) was developed with an expert panel of leading LBP researchers (>2 publications on LBP) and multidisciplinary clinicians and patient partners with 5 years of clinical/lived LBP experience in LMICs. Quantitative data were analyzed using descriptive statistics. Two researchers independently analyzed qualitative data using inductive and deductive coding and developed a thematic framework. RESULTS: Forty-seven (85%) of 55 invited panel members representing 32 LMICs completed the survey (38% women, 62% men). The panel included clinicians (34%), researchers (28%), educators (6%), and people with lived experience (4%). Pharmacotherapies and electrophysiological agents were the most used LBP treatments. The thematic framework comprised 8 themes: (1) self-management is ubiquitous, (2) medicines are the cornerstone, (3) traditional therapies have a place, (4) society plays an important role, (5) imaging use is very common, (6) reliance on passive approaches, (7) social determinants influence LBP care pathway, and (8) health systems are ill-prepared to address LBP burden. CONCLUSION: LBP care in LMICs did not consistently align with the best available evidence. Findings will help research prioritization in LMICs and guide global LBP clinical guidelines. J Orthop Sports Phys Ther 2024;54(8):560-572. Epub 11 April 2024. doi:10.2519/jospt.2024.12406 .

Purpose: To explore how the change-point method can be used to analyze complex longitudinal data and detect when meaningful changes (change points) have occurred during rehabilitation., Method: This design is a prospective single-case observational study of a football player in a professional club who sustained an acute lower-limb muscle injury during high-speed running in training. The rehabilitation program was entirely completed in the football club under the supervision of the club's medical team. Four wellness metrics and 5 running-performance metrics were collected before the injury and until the player returned to play., Results: Data were collected over 130 days. In the univariate analysis, the change points for stress, sleep, mood, and soreness were located on days 30, 47, 50, and 50, respectively. The change points for total distance, acceleration, maximum speed, deceleration, and high-speed running were located on days 32, 34, 37, 41, and 41, respectively. The multivariate analysis resulted in a single change point for the wellness metrics and running-performance metrics, on days 50 and 67, respectively., Conclusions: The univariate approach provided information regarding the sequence and time point of the change points. The multivariate approach provided a common change point for multiple metrics, information that would benefit clinicians to have a broad overview of the changes in the rehabilitation process. Clinicians may consider the change-point method to integrate and visualize data from multiple sources to evaluate athletes' progression along the return-to-sport continuum.

Background: Wheelchair tennis, a globally popular sport, features a professional tour spanning 40 countries and over 160 tournaments. Despite its widespread appeal, information about the physical demands of wheelchair tennis is scattered across various studies, necessitating a comprehensive systematic review to synthesise available data., Objective: The aim was to provide a detailed synthesis of the physical demands associated with wheelchair tennis, encompassing diverse factors such as court surfaces, performance levels, sport classes, and sexes., Methods: We conducted comprehensive searches in the PubMed, Embase, CINAHL, and SPORTDiscus databases, covering articles from inception to March 1, 2023. Forward and backward citation tracking from the included articles was carried out using Scopus, and we established eligibility criteria following the Population, Exposure, Comparison, Outcome, and Study design (PECOS) framework. Our study focused on wheelchair tennis players participating at regional, national, or international levels, including both juniors and adults, and open and quad players. We analysed singles and doubles matches and considered sex (male, female), sport class (open, quad), and court surface type (hard, clay, grass) as key comparative points. The outcomes of interest encompassed play duration, on-court movement, stroke performance, and physiological match variables. The selected study designs included observational cross-sectional, longitudinal, and intervention studies (baseline data only). We calculated pooled means or mean differences with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) and employed a random-effects meta-analysis with robust variance estimation. We assessed heterogeneity using Cochrane Q and 95% prediction intervals., Results: Our literature search retrieved 643 records, with 24 articles meeting our inclusion criteria. Most available information focused on international male wheelchair tennis players in the open division, primarily competing in singles on hard courts. Key findings (mean [95% CI]) for these players on hard courts were match duration 65.9 min [55.0-78.8], set duration 35.0 min [28.2-43.5], game duration 4.6 min [0.92-23.3], rally duration 6.1 s [3.7-10.2], effective playing time 19.8% [18.9-20.7], and work-to-rest ratio 1:4.1 [1:3.7-1:4.4]. Insufficient data were available to analyse play duration for female players. However, for the available data on hard court matches, the average set duration was 34.8 min [32.5-37.2]. International male players on hard court covered an average distance per match of 3859 m [1917-7768], with mean and peak average forward speeds of 1.06 m/s [0.85-1.32] and 3.55 m/s [2.92-4.31], respectively. These players executed an average of 365.9 [317.2-422.1] strokes per match, 200.6 [134.7-299.0] per set, 25.4 [16.7-38.7] per game, and 3.4 [2.6-4.6] per rally. Insufficient data were available for a meta-analysis of female players' on-court movement and stroke performance. The average and peak heart rates of international male players on hard court were 134.3 [124.2-145.1] and 166.0 [132.7-207.6] beats per minute, and the average match heart rate expressed as a percentage of peak heart rate was 74.7% [46.4-100]. We found no studies concerning regional players or juniors, and only one study on doubles match play., Conclusions: While we present a comprehensive overview of the physical demands of wheelchair tennis, our understanding predominantly centres around international male players competing on hard courts in the open division. To attain a more comprehensive insight into the sport's physical requirements, future research should prioritise the inclusion of data on female and quad players, juniors, doubles, and matches played on clay and grass court surfaces. Such endeavours will facilitate the development of more tailored and effective training programmes for wheelchair tennis players and coaches. The protocol for this systematic review was registered a priori at the International Platform of Registered Systematic Review and Meta-analysis Protocols (Registration https://doi.org/10.37766/inplasy2023.3.0060 )., (© 2024. The Author(s), under exclusive licence to Springer Nature Switzerland AG.)

Objective: Clinicians treating patients with patellofemoral pain (PFP) rely on consensus statements to make the best practice recommendations in the absence of definitive evidence on how to manage PFP. However, the methods used to generate and assess agreement for these recommendations have not been examined. Our objective was to map the methods used to generate consensus-based recommendations for PFP and apply four novel questions to assess the rigour of consensus development., Design: Scoping review., Data Sources: We searched Medline, SPORTDiscus, CINAHL and Embase from inception to May 2022 to identify consensus-derived statements or practice guidelines on PFP. The Joanna Briggs Institute Manual for Evidence Synthesis was followed to map the existing evidence. We measured the consensus methods based on four sets of questions addressing the panel composition, application of the consensus method chosen, agreement process and the use of evidence mapping., Eligibility Criteria: All consensus statements or clinical guidelines on PFP were considered., Results: Twenty-two PFP consensus statements were identified. Panel composition: 3 of the 22 (14%) consensus groups reported the panellists' experience, 2 (9%) defined a desired level of expertise, 10 (45%) reported panellist sex and only 2 (9%) included a patient. Consensus method: 7 of 22 (32%) reported using an established method of consensus measurement/development. Agreement process: 10 of 22 (45%) reported their consensus threshold and 2 (9%) acknowledged dissenting opinions among the panel. Evidence mapping: 6 of 22 (27%) reported using systematic methods to identify relevant evidence gaps., Conclusions: PFP consensus panels have lacked diversity and excluded key partners including patients. Consensus statements on PFP frequently fail to use recognised consensus methods, rarely describe how 'agreement' was defined or measured and often neglect to use systematic methods to identify evidence gaps., Competing Interests: Competing interests: None declared., (© Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2024. Re-use permitted under CC BY. Published by BMJ.)

People often use infographics (also called visual or graphical abstracts) as a substitute for reading the full text of an article. This is a concern because most infographics do not present sufficient information to interpret the research appropriately and guide wise health decisions. The Reporting Infographics and Visual Abstracts of Comparative studies (RIVA-C) checklist and guide aims to improve the completeness with which research findings of comparative studies are communicated and avoid research findings being misinterpreted if readers do not refer to the full text. The primary audience for the RIVA-C checklist and guide is developers of infographics that summarise comparative studies of health and medical interventions. The need for the RIVA-C checklist and guide was identified by a survey of how people use infographics. Possible checklist items were informed by a systematic review of how infographics report research. We then conducted a two-round, modified Delphi survey of 92 infographic developers/designers, researchers, health professionals and other key stakeholders. The final checklist includes 10 items. Accompanying explanation and both text and graphical examples linked to the items were developed and pilot tested over a 6-month period. The RIVA-C checklist and guide was designed to facilitate the creation of clear, transparent and sufficiently detailed infographics which summarise comparative studies of health and medical interventions. Accurate infographics can ensure research findings are communicated appropriately and not misinterpreted. By capturing the perspectives of a wide range of end users (eg, authors, informatics editors, journal editors, consumers), we are hopeful of rapid endorsement and implementation of RIVA-C., Competing Interests: Competing interests: None declared., (© Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2024. Re-use permitted under CC BY. Published by BMJ.)

In this paper, we explore what is needed to generate quality research to guide evidence-informed digital health policy and call the Canadian community of patients, clinicians, policy (decision) makers and researchers to action in setting digital health research priorities for supporting underserved communities. Using specific examples, we describe how evidence is produced and implemented to guide digital health policy. We study how research environments must change to reflect and include the communities for whom the policy is intended. Our goal is to guide how future evidence reaches policy makers to help them shape healthcare services and how these services are delivered to underserved communities in Canada. Understanding the pathways through which evidence can make a difference to equitable and sustainable digital health policy is vital for guiding the types of research that attract priority resources., (Copyright © 2024 Longwoods Publishing.)

Learning health systems (LHSs) embed social accountability into everyday workflows and can inform how governments build bridges across the digital health divide. They shape partnerships using rapid cycles of data-driven learning to respond to patients' calls to action for equity from digital health. Adopting the LHS approach involves re-distributing power, which is likely to be met with resistance. We use the LHS example of British Columbia's 811 services to highlight how infrastructure was created to provide care and answer questions about access to digital health, outcomes from it and the financial impact passed on to patients. In the concluding section, we offer an accountability framework that facilitates partnerships in making digital health more equitable., (Copyright © 2024 Longwoods Publishing.)