Search

ObjectiveTo index levels of hearing loss with respect to area-level indices of deprivation in a Welsh population.DesignA cross-sectional observational study of all adults (aged >18) that attended Abertawe Bro Morgannwg University (ABMU) Health Board audiology services between 2016 and 2018. Service access, first hearing aid fitting appointment rates and hearing loss at time of first hearing aid provision were used to index population hearing loss versus area-level indices of deprivation based on patient postcode.SettingPrimary and secondary care.Participants59 493 patient entries met the inclusion criteria. Patient entries were grouped by age (18–30, 31–40, 41–50, 51–60, 61–70, 71–80, >80 years) and deprivation decile.ResultsThe interaction between age group and deprivation decile predicted access rate to ABMU audiology services (b=−0.24, t(6858) = −2.86, p80 years. First hearing aid fitting rates were highest among the most deprived in the four youngest age groups (pConclusionsHearing health inequalities are prevalent among adults accessing ABMU audiology services. Our findings suggest that deprivation increases the likelihood of developing hearing loss, brings earlier onset of hearing loss and is linked to delays in getting help for hearing problems. However, it is not possible to know the true scale of these disparities without knowing the hearing health of the Welsh adult population including those who do not seek help for hearing problems.

IntroductionMelasma is a pigmentation disorder of the skin. Characterised by brown to gray-brown patches on the face and neck, the condition predominantly affects women and has been associated with pregnancy, hormonal variation and sun exposure. Melasma can be disfiguring and anxiety-provoking, and quality of life is often adversely impacted. Management includes sun protection, laser and energy device therapy, topical and oral skin-bleaching agents and chemical peels. While clinical trials of melasma exist, there is a lack of consistency in reported outcomes, which has been a barrier to the aggregation of data in systematic reviews and meta-analyses. This protocol describes a planned process for development of a minimum set of outcomes (ie, ‘core outcome set’) that should be measured in all clinical trials of melasma.Methods and analysisAn exhaustive list of potential outcomes will be extracted from four sources: (1) systematic literature review of outcomes in clinical trials; (2) semistructured patient interviews; (3) brochures, pamphlets, clinical trial registries, and other published and unpublished sources and documentation; and (4) interviews with non-patient, non-physician stakeholders, including federal regulators, industry scientists and non-physician providers. An international two-round Delphi process will then be performed to identify the outcomes deemed most important to patients and physicians. Subsequently, a consensus meeting will be convened to review and process the results, and to vote on a final set of core outcomes.Ethics and disseminationEthics approval was provided by the Northwestern University Institutional Review Board (protocol ID: STU00201637). This study is registered with both the Core Outcome Measures in Effectiveness Trials and Cochrane Skin-Core Outcome Set Initiative initiatives, and this protocol is in accordance with the guidelines for protocol development of both groups. All findings from the study described in this protocol will be disseminated to all stakeholders involved in the development process and will be submitted for publication in peer-reviewed journals.PROSPERO registration numberCRD42020214189.

Introduction‘Multimorbidity’ describes the presence of two or more long-term conditions, which can include communicable, non-communicable diseases, and mental disorders. The rising global burden from multimorbidity is well documented, but trial evidence for effective interventions in low-/middle-income countries (LMICs) is limited. Selection of appropriate outcomes is fundamental to trial design to ensure cross-study comparability, but there is currently no agreement on a core outcome set (COS) to include in trials investigating multimorbidity specifically in LMICs. Our aim is to develop international consensus on two COSs for trials of interventions to prevent and treat multimorbidity in LMIC settings.Methods and analysisFollowing methods recommended by the Core Outcome Measures in Effectiveness Trials initiative, the development of these two COSs will occur in parallel in three stages: (1) generation of a long list of potential outcomes for inclusion; (2) two-round online Delphi surveys and (3) consensus meetings. First, to generate an initial list of outcomes, we will conduct a systematic review of multimorbidity intervention and prevention trials and interviews with people living with multimorbidity and their caregivers in LMICs. Outcomes will be classified using an outcome taxonomy. Two-round Delphi surveys will be used to elicit importance scores for these outcomes from people living with multimorbidity, caregivers, healthcare professionals, policy makers and researchers in LMICs. Finally, consensus meetings including all of these stakeholders will be held to agree outcomes for inclusion in the two COSs.Ethics and disseminationThe study has been approved by the Research Governance Committee of the Department of Health Sciences, University of York, UK (HSRGC/2020/409/D:COSMOS). Each participating country/research group will obtain local ethics board approval. Informed consent will be obtained from all participants. We will disseminate findings through peer-reviewed open access publications, and presentations at global conferences selected to reach a wide range of LMIC stakeholders.PROSPERO registation numberCRD42020197293.

Objective To evaluate the ability of The BMJ editors to predict the number of times submitted research manuscripts will be cited. Design Cohort study. Setting Manuscripts submitted to The BMJ , reviewed, and subsequently scheduled for discussion at a prepublication meeting between 27 August 2015 and 29 December 2016. Participants 10 BMJ research team editors. Main outcome measures Reviewed manuscripts were rated independently by attending editors for citation potential in the year of first publication plus the next year: no citations, below average (17 citations). Predicted citations were subsequently compared with actual citations extracted from Web of Science (WOS). Results Of 534 manuscripts reviewed, 505 were published as full length articles (219 in The BMJ) by end of 2019 and indexed in WOS, 22 were unpublished, and one abstract was withdrawn. Among the 505 manuscripts, the median (IQR [range]) number of citations in the year of publication plus the following year was 9 (4-17 [0-150]); 277 (55%) manuscripts were cited 17 times. Manuscripts accepted by The BMJ were cited more highly (median 12 (IQR 7-24) citations) than those rejected (median 7 (3-12) citations). For all 10 editors, predicted ratings tended to increase in line with actual citations, but with considerable variation within categories; nine failed to identify the correct citation category for >50% (range 31%-52%) of manuscripts, and κ ranged between 0.01 to 0.19 for agreement between predicted and actual categories. Editors more often rated papers that achieved high actual citation counts as having low citation potential than the reverse. Collectively, the mean percentage of editors predicting the correct citation category was 43%, and for 160 (32%) manuscripts at least 50% of editors predicted the right category. Conclusions Editors weren’t good at estimating the citation potential of manuscripts individually or as a group; there is no wisdom of the crowd when it comes to BMJ editors.

ObjectiveTo compare results reporting and the presence of spin in COVID-19 study preprints with their finalised journal publications.DesignCross-sectional study.SettingInternational medical literature.ParticipantsPreprints and final journal publications of 67 interventional and observational studies of COVID-19 treatment or prevention from the Cochrane COVID-19 Study Register published between 1 March 2020 and 30 October 2020.Main outcome measuresStudy characteristics and discrepancies in (1) results reporting (number of outcomes, outcome descriptor, measure, metric, assessment time point, data reported, reported statistical significance of result, type of statistical analysis, subgroup analyses (if any), whether outcome was identified as primary or secondary) and (2) spin (reporting practices that distort the interpretation of results so they are viewed more favourably).ResultsOf 67 included studies, 23 (34%) had no discrepancies in results reporting between preprints and journal publications. Fifteen (22%) studies had at least one outcome that was included in the journal publication, but not the preprint; eight (12%) had at least one outcome that was reported in the preprint only. For outcomes that were reported in both preprints and journals, common discrepancies were differences in numerical values and statistical significance, additional statistical tests and subgroup analyses and longer follow-up times for outcome assessment in journal publications.At least one instance of spin occurred in both preprints and journals in 23/67 (34%) studies, the preprint only in 5 (7%), and the journal publications only in 2 (3%). Spin was removed between the preprint and journal publication in 5/67 (7%) studies; but added in 1/67 (1%) study.ConclusionsThe COVID-19 preprints and their subsequent journal publications were largely similar in reporting of study characteristics, outcomes and spin. All COVID-19 studies published as preprints and journal publications should be critically evaluated for discrepancies and spin.

Postinflammatory hyperpigmentation (PIH) is a disorder of pigmentation that is a common presenting complaint, especially in individuals with skin of color. It is associated with a significant psychological burden and decrement of quality of life. Management options include photoprotection, topical lightening agents, and lasers and energy devices. Clinical trials of melasma report a diversity of outcomes, which often impedes synthesis of results across trials, or comparison of results associated with different treatment modalities. This protocol describes the design of a consensus process that would culminate in the development of a core set of outcomes to be assessed in all clinical trials for PIH. A long list of candidate outcomes will be developed through a systematic review, combined with semi-structured interviews with various stakeholders, including patients, scientists, regulators, and health care professionals. This long list of outcomes will be reviewed and refined by a steering committee. Then two rounds of Delphi surveys of patient and physician groups, respectively, will be used to cull the list, with provisional inclusion of those items deemed “important” by 70% of the respondents. A consensus meeting will be held virtually or in person to vote on these items, and also to consider any changes necessary before acceptance of a final core outcome set. Development of a core outcome set for PIH is expected to improve and standardize outcomes reporting in current and future clinical trials. This, in turn, may facilitate aggregation of research results and permit comparison of outcomes across multiple studies.

Objectives: The objective of this review is to identify all preprint platforms with biomedical and medical scope and to compare and contrast the key characteristics and policies of these platforms. We also aim to provide a searchable database to enable relevant stakeholders to compare between platforms. Study Design and Setting: Preprint platforms that were launched up to 25th June 2019 and have a biomedical and medical scope according to MEDLINE's journal selection criteria were identified using existing lists, web-based searches and the expertise of both academic and non-academic publication scientists. A data extraction form was developed, pilot-tested and used to collect data from each preprint platform's webpage(s). Data collected were in relation to scope and ownership; content-specific characteristics and information relating to submission, journal transfer options, and external discoverability; screening, moderation, and permanence of content; usage metrics and metadata. Where possible, all online data were verified by the platform owner or representative by correspondence. Results: A total of 44 preprint platforms were identified as having biomedical and medical scope, 17 (39%) were hosted by the Open Science Framework preprint infrastructure, six (14%) were provided by F1000 Research Ltd (the Open Research Central infrastructure) and 21 (48%) were other independent preprint platforms. Preprint platforms were either owned by non-profit academic groups, scientific societies or funding organisations (n=28; 64%), owned/partly owned by for-profit publishers or companies (n=14; 32%) or owned by individuals/small communities (n=2; 5%). Twenty-four (55%) preprint platforms accepted content from all scientific fields although some of these had restrictions relating to funding source, geographical region or an affiliated journal's remit. Thirty-three (75%) preprint platforms provided details about article screening (basic checks) and 14 (32%) of these actively involved researchers with context expertise in the screening process. The three most common screening checks related to the scope of the article, plagiarism and legal/ethical/societal issues and compliance. Almost all preprint platforms allow submission to any peer-reviewed journal following publication, have a preservation plan for read-access, and most have a policy regarding reasons for retraction and the sustainability of the service. Forty-one (93%) platforms currently have usage metrics, with the most common metric being the number of downloads presented on the abstract page. Conclusion: A large number of preprint platforms exist for use in biomedical and medical sciences, all of which offer researchers an opportunity to rapidly disseminate their research findings onto an open-access public server, subject to scope and eligibility. However, the process by which content is screened before online posting and withdrawn or removed after posting varies between platforms, which may be associated with platform operation, ownership, governance and financing.

ObjectivesReporting of research for stroke-related visual impairment is inconsistent. The aim of this study was to define three core outcome sets (COS) and related core outcome measurements (COM) for central visual impairment, visual field loss and ocular motility disorders in stroke research.DesignThe consensus process consisted of an online three-round Delphi survey followed by a consensus meeting of key stakeholders.SettingUK-wide survey.ParticipantsStakeholders included orthoptists, occupational therapists, ophthalmologists, stroke survivors and COS users such as researchers, journal editors and guideline developers.Outcome measuresFor COS development, a list of potentially relevant visual outcomes was created after review of the literature and further grouped into outcome domains. For COM development, a list of potential instruments was created after review of the literature and quality appraised for reliability and validity.ResultsCOS—119 potential outcomes extracted from published literature. Similar assessment outcomes were grouped into 24 outcome domains. Delphi process included 123 participants in round 1, 65 round 2, 51 round 3. Twelve participants attended the consensus meeting with recommended outcome domains for central visual impairment (visual acuity, functional vision, quality of life), visual field loss (visual fields, functional vision, quality of life) and ocular motility disorders (eye alignment, eye movements, functional vision, quality of life). COM—52 test options extracted from the COS outcomes and grouped into 16 domains. Thirteen participants attended the COM consensus meeting. Recommended instruments for measurement of these outcomes include; Logarithm of the Minimal Angle of Resolution visual acuity, cover test, cardinal position eye movement assessments, peripheral visual field perimetry, Visual Function Questionnaire-25.ConclusionsCOS and COM are defined for vision research for stroke survivors. Their use has potential to reduce heterogeneity in routine clinical practice and improve standardisation and accuracy of vision assessment. Future research is required to evaluate the use of these COS and COM.

ObjectivesA core outcome set (COS) is an agreed standardised minimum collection of outcomes that should be measured and reported in research in a specific area of health. Cochrane systematic reviews (‘reviews’) are rigorous reviews on health-related topics conducted under the auspices of Cochrane. This study examines the use of existing COS to inform the choice of outcomes in Cochrane systematic reviews (‘reviews’) and investigates the views of the coordinating editors of Cochrane Review Groups (CRGs) on this topic.MethodsA cohort of 100 recently published or updated Cochrane reviews were assessed for reference to a COS being used to inform the choice of outcomes for the review. Existing COS, published 2 or more years before the review publication, were then identified to assess how often a reviewer could have used a relevant COS if it was available. We asked 52 CRG coordinating editors about their involvement in COS development, how outcomes are selected for reviews in their CRG and their views of the advantages and challenges surrounding the standardisation of outcomes within their CRG.ResultsIn the cohort of reviews from 2019, 40% (40/100) of reviewers noted problems due to outcome inconsistency across the included studies. In 7% (7/100) of reviews, a COS was referenced in relation to the choice of outcomes for the review. Relevant existing COS could be considered for a review update in 35% of the others (33/93). Most editors who responded (31/36, 86%) thought that COS should definitely or possibly be used to inform the choice of outcomes in a review.ConclusionsSystematic reviewers are continuing to note outcome heterogeneity but are starting to use COS to inform their reviews. There is potential for greater uptake of COS in Cochrane reviews.

ObjectiveTo evaluate the impact of an editorial intervention to improve completeness of reporting of reports of randomised trials.DesignRandomised controlled trial (RCT).SettingBMJ Open’s quality improvement programme.Participants24 manuscripts describing RCTs.InterventionsWe used an R Shiny application to randomise manuscripts (1:1 allocation ratio, blocks of 4) to the intervention (n=12) or control (n=12) group. The intervention was performed by a researcher with expertise in the content of the Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials (CONSORT) and consisted of an evaluation of completeness of reporting of eight core CONSORT items using the submitted checklist to locate information, and the production of a report containing specific requests for authors based on the reporting issues found, provided alongside the peer review reports. The control group underwent the usual peer review.OutcomesThe primary outcome is the number of adequately reported items (0–8 scale) in the revised manuscript after the first round of peer review. The main analysis was intention-to-treat (n=24), and we imputed the scores of lost to follow-up manuscripts (rejected after peer review and not resubmitted). The secondary outcome is the proportion of manuscripts where each item was adequately reported. Two blinded reviewers assessed the outcomes independently and in duplicate and solved disagreements by consensus. We also recorded the amount of time to perform the intervention.ResultsManuscripts in the intervention group (mean: 7.01; SD: 1.47) were more completely reported than those in the control group (mean: 5.68; SD: 1.43) (mean difference 1.43, 95% CI 0.31 to 2.58). We observed the main differences in items 6a (outcomes), 9 (allocation concealment mechanism), 11a (blinding) and 17a (outcomes and estimation). The mean time to perform the intervention was 87 (SD 42) min.ConclusionsWe demonstrated the benefit of involving a reporting guideline expert in the editorial process. Improving the completeness of RCTs is essential to enhance their usability.Trial registration numberNCT03751878.

BackgroundDiscrepancies in outcome reporting (DOR) between protocol and published studies include inclusions of new outcomes, omission of prespecified outcomes, upgrade and downgrade of secondary and primary outcomes, and changes in definitions of prespecified outcomes. DOR can result in outcome reporting bias (ORB) when changes in outcomes occur after knowledge of results. This has potential to overestimate treatment effects and underestimate harms. This can also occur at the level of systematic reviews when changes in outcomes occur after knowledge of results of included studies. The prevalence of DOR and ORB in systematic reviews is unknown in systematic reviews published post-2007.ObjectiveTo estimate the prevalence of DOR and risk of ORB in all Cochrane reviews between the years 2007 and 2014.MethodsA stratified random sampling approach was applied to collect a representative sample of Cochrane systematic reviews from each Cochrane review group. DOR was assessed by matching outcomes in each systematic review with their respective protocol. When DOR occurred, reviews were further assessed if there was a risk of ORB (unclear, low or high risk). We classified DOR as a high risk for ORB if the discrepancy occurred after knowledge of results in the systematic review.Results150 of 350 (43%) review and protocol pairings contained DOR. When reviews were further scrutinised, 23% (35 of 150) of reviews with DOR contained a high risk of ORB, with changes being made after knowledge of results from individual trials.ConclusionsIn our study, we identified just under a half of Cochrane reviews with at least one DOR. Of these, a fifth were at high risk of ORB. The presence of DOR and ORB in Cochrane reviews is of great concern; however, a solution is relatively simple. Authors are encouraged to be transparent where outcomes change and to describe the legitimacy of changing outcomes in order to prevent suspicion of bias.

Assessment of risk of bias is regarded as an essential component of a systematic review on the effects of an intervention. The most commonly used tool for randomised trials is the Cochrane risk-of-bias tool. We updated the tool to respond to developments in understanding how bias arises in randomised trials, and to address user feedback on and limitations of the original tool.

MR is supported partly by Liverpool Reviews and Implementation Group (LRiG, based at the University of Liverpool), based on funding from the National Institute for Health Research Health Technology Assessment Programme (URL, http://www.nets.nihr.ac.uk/programmes/hta), and partly by the Research, Evidence and Development Initiative (READ-It) project. READ-It (project number 300342-104) is funded by UK aid from the UK government. Introduction: Large sample sizes are often required to detect statistically significant associations between pharmacogenetic markers and treatment response. Meta-analysis may be performed to synthesise data from several studies, increasing sample size and consequently power to detect significant genetic effects. However, performing robust synthesis of data from pharmacogenetic studies is often challenging due to poor reporting of key data in study reports. There is currently no guideline for the reporting of pharmacogenetic studies. The aim of this project is to develop the STrengthening the Reporting Of Pharmacogenetic Studies (STROPS) guideline. The STROPS guideline will facilitate the conduct of high-quality meta-analyses and thus improve the power to detect genetic associations. Methods and analysis: We will establish a preliminary checklist of reporting items to be considered for inclusion in the guideline. We will then conduct a Delphi survey of key stakeholder groups to gain consensus opinion on which reporting items to include in the final guideline. The Delphi survey will consist of two rounds: the first round will invite participants to score items from the preliminary checklist and to suggest additional relevant items; the second round will provide feedback from the previous round and invite participants to re-score the items. Following the second round, we will summarise the distribution of scores for each item, stratified by stakeholder group. The Steering Committee for the project and representatives from the key stakeholder groups will meet to consider the results of the Delphi survey and to finalise the list of reporting items. We will then draft, pilot-test and publish the STROPS reporting guideline and accompanying explanatory document. Ethics and dissemination: The University of Liverpool Ethics Committee has confirmed ethical approval for this study (reference: 3586). Dissemination activities will include presenting the reporting guideline at conferences relevant to pharmacogenetic research. Publisher PDF

ObjectivesThe goal of this study is to identify, analyse and classify interventions to improve adherence to reporting guidelines in order to obtain a wide picture of how the problem of enhancing the completeness of reporting of biomedical literature has been tackled so far.DesignScoping review.Search strategyWe searched the MEDLINE, EMBASE and Cochrane Library databases and conducted a grey literature search for (1) studies evaluating interventions to improve adherence to reporting guidelines in health research and (2) other types of references describing interventions that have been performed or suggested but never evaluated. The characteristics and effect of the evaluated interventions were analysed. Moreover, we explored the rationale of the interventions identified and determined the existing gaps in research on the evaluation of interventions to improve adherence to reporting guidelines.Results109 references containing 31 interventions (11 evaluated) were included. These were grouped into five categories: (1) training on the use of reporting guidelines, (2) improving understanding, (3) encouraging adherence, (4) checking adherence and providing feedback, and (5) involvement of experts. Additionally, we identified lack of evaluated interventions (1) on training on the use of reporting guidelines and improving their understanding, (2) at early stages of research and (3) after the final acceptance of the manuscript.ConclusionsThis scoping review identified a wide range of strategies to improve adherence to reporting guidelines that can be taken by different stakeholders. Additional research is needed to assess the effectiveness of many of these interventions.

Background: Improving the completeness of reporting of biomedical research is essential for improving its usability. For this reason, hundreds of reporting guidelines have been created in the last few decades but adherence to these remains suboptimal. This survey aims to inform future evaluations of interventions to improve adherence to reporting guidelines. In particular, it gathers editors’ perceptions of a range of interventions at various stages in the editorial process. Methods: We surveyed biomedical journal editors that were knowledgeable about this topic. The questionnaire included open and closed questions that explored (i) the current practice of their journals, (ii) their perceptions of the ease of implementation of different interventions and the potential effectiveness of these at improving adherence to reporting guidelines, (iii) the barriers and facilitators associated with these interventions, and (iv) suggestions for future interventions and incentives. Results: Of the 99 editors invited, 24 (24%) completed the survey. Involving trained editors or administrative staff was deemed the potentially most effective intervention but, at the same time, it was considered moderately difficult to implement due to logistic and resource issues. Participants believed that checking adherence to guidelines goes beyond the role of peer reviewers and were concerned that the quality of peer review could be compromised. Reviewers are generally not expected to focus on reporting issues but on providing an expert view on the importance, novelty, and relevance of the manuscript. Journals incentivising adherence, and publishers and medical institutions encouraging journals to take action to boost adherence were two recurrent themes. Conclusions: Biomedical journal editors generally believed that engaging trained professionals would be the most effective, yet resource intensive, editorial intervention. Also, they thought that peer reviewers should not be asked to check RGs. Future evaluations of interventions can take into account the barriers, facilitators, and incentives described in this survey.

Background Large sample sizes are often required to detect statistically significant associations between pharmacogenetic markers and treatment response. Meta-analysis may be performed to synthesize data from several studies, increasing sample size and, consequently, power to detect significant genetic effects. However, performing robust synthesis of data from pharmacogenetic studies is often challenging because of poor reporting of key data in study reports. There is currently no guideline for the reporting of pharmacogenetic studies that has been developed using a widely accepted robust methodology. The objective of this project was to develop the STrengthening the Reporting Of Pharmacogenetic Studies (STROPS) guideline. Methods and findings We established a preliminary checklist of reporting items to be considered for inclusion in the guideline. We invited representatives of key stakeholder groups to participate in a 2-round Delphi survey. A total of 52 individuals participated in both rounds of the survey, scoring items with regards to their importance for inclusion in the STROPS guideline. We then held a consensus meeting, at which 8 individuals considered the results of the Delphi survey and voted on whether each item ought to be included in the final guideline. The STROPS guideline consists of 54 items and is accompanied by an explanation and elaboration document. The guideline contains items that are particularly important in the field of pharmacogenetics, such as the drug regimen of interest and whether adherence to treatment was accounted for in the conducted analyses. The guideline also requires that outcomes be clearly defined and justified, because in pharmacogenetic studies, there may be a greater number of possible outcomes than in other types of study (for example, disease–gene association studies). A limitation of this project is that our consensus meeting involved a small number of individuals, the majority of whom are based in the United Kingdom. Conclusions Our aim is for the STROPS guideline to improve the transparency of reporting of pharmacogenetic studies and also to facilitate the conduct of high-quality systematic reviews and meta-analyses. We encourage authors to adhere to the STROPS guideline when publishing pharmacogenetic studies., Marty Chaplin and co-authors recount the development of a guideline for reporting pharmacogenetic studies.

ObjectiveTo systematically review the evidence around the effect of ambient levels of particulate and gaseous pollutants, and the risk of hospitalisation with bronchiolitis for infants under two years of age.DesignSystematic review of observational epidemiological studies including cohort, time series, case crossover and case control study designs.Data sourcesMedline, Scopus, and Web of Science searched to November 2017 with no language restrictions.Eligibility criteriaStudies investigating impact of air pollution levels on particulate pollutants (diameter 2), sulphur dioxide (SO2), carbon monoxide (CO), ozone (O3)) on hospital admission for bronchiolitis.Main outcome measureRisk of hospitalisation from bronchiolitis.ResultsEight studies were eligible for review. Long term exposure to PM2.5 may be associated with increased risk of hospitalisation for bronchiolitis. SO2may also be associated with hospitalisation, but results for other pollutants are inconsistent between studies. In three of the five studies that showed a positive association between air pollutants and hospitalisation, measured concentrations were below World Health Organization (WHO) recommended levels.ConclusionsCertain particulate and gaseous pollutants may have a clinically relevant effect on hospital admissions for bronchiolitis in children below age two years old. Large cohort or time series studies are needed to examine this possible association.ProtocolThe protocol can be found at PROSPERO (CRD42017080643).

Background: Preprint servers and alternative publication platforms enable authors to accelerate the dissemination of their research. In recent years there has been an exponential increase in the use of such servers and platforms in the biomedical sciences, although little is known about who, why and what experiences researchers have with publishing on such platforms. In this article we explore one of these alternative publication platforms, F1000 Research, which offers immediate publication followed by post-publication peer review. Methods: From an unselected cohort of articles published between 13th July 2012 and 30th November 2017 in F1000 Research, we provided a summary of who and what was published on this platform and calculated the percentage of published articles that had been indexed on a bibliographic database (PubMed) following successful post-publication peer review. We also surveyed corresponding authors to further understand the rationale and experiences of those that have published using this platform. Results: A total of 1865 articles had been published in the study cohort period, of which 80% (n=1488) had successfully undergone peer review and were indexed on PubMed within a minimum period of six months since first publication. Nearly three-quarters of articles passed the peer review process with their initial submission. Survey responses were received from 296 corresponding authors. Open access, open peer review and the speed of publication were the three main reasons why authors opted to publish with F1000 Research. Conclusions: Many who published with F1000 Research had a positive experience and indicated that they would publish again with this same platform in the future. Nevertheless, there remained some concerns about the peer review process and the quality of the articles that were published.

Background The use of core outcome sets (COS) ensures that researchers measure and report those outcomes that are most likely to be relevant to users of their research. Several hundred COS projects have been systematically identified to date, but there has been no formal quality assessment of these studies. The Core Outcome Set-STAndards for Development (COS-STAD) project aimed to identify minimum standards for the design of a COS study agreed upon by an international group, while other specific guidance exists for the final reporting of COS development studies (Core Outcome Set-STAndards for Reporting [COS-STAR]). Methods and findings An international group of experienced COS developers, methodologists, journal editors, potential users of COS (clinical trialists, systematic reviewers, and clinical guideline developers), and patient representatives produced the COS-STAD recommendations to help improve the quality of COS development and support the assessment of whether a COS had been developed using a reasonable approach. An open survey of experts generated an initial list of items, which was refined by a 2-round Delphi survey involving nearly 250 participants representing key stakeholder groups. Participants assigned importance ratings for each item using a 1–9 scale. Consensus that an item should be included in the set of minimum standards was defined as at least 70% of the voting participants from each stakeholder group providing a score between 7 and 9. The Delphi survey was followed by a consensus discussion with the study management group representing multiple stakeholder groups. COS-STAD contains 11 minimum standards that are the minimum design recommendations for all COS development projects. The recommendations focus on 3 key domains: the scope, the stakeholders, and the consensus process. Conclusions The COS-STAD project has established 11 minimum standards to be followed by COS developers when planning their projects and by users when deciding whether a COS has been developed using reasonable methods., Paula Williamson and colleagues report on the core outcome set standards for development that researchers should use for improving reporting of their research.

Summary points: • Meta-analysis methods combine quantitative evidence from related studies to produce results based on a whole body of research • Studies that do not provide direct evidence about a particular outcome or treatment comparison of interest are often discarded from a meta-analysis of that outcome or treatment comparison • Multivariate and network meta-analysis methods simultaneously analyse multiple outcomes and multiple treatments, respectively, which allows more studies to contribute towards each outcome and treatment comparison • Summary results for each outcome now depend on correlated results from other outcomes, and summary results for each treatment comparison now incorporate indirect evidence from related treatment comparisons, in addition to any direct evidence • This often leads to a gain in information, which can be quantified by the “borrowing of strength” statistic, BoS (the percentage reduction in the variance of a summary result that is due to correlated or indirect evidence) • Under a missing at random assumption, a multivariate meta-analysis of multiple outcomes is most beneficial when the outcomes are highly correlated and the percentage of studies with missing outcomes is large • Network meta-analyses gain information through a consistency assumption, which should be evaluated in each network where possible. There is usually low power to detect inconsistency, which arises when effect modifiers are systematically different in the subsets of trials providing direct and indirect evidence • Network meta-analysis allows multiple treatments to be compared and ranked based on their summary results. Focusing on the probability of being ranked first is, however, potentially misleading: a treatment ranked first may also have a high probability of being ranked last, and its benefit over other treatments may be of little clinical value • Novel network meta-analysis methods are emerging to use individual participant data, to evaluate dose, to incorporate “real world” evidence from observational studies, and to relax the consistency assumption by allowing summary inferences while accounting for inconsistency effects

The BMJ published an investigation into the prevalence and impact of outcome reporting bias in randomised controlled trials included in Cochrane systematic reviews in 2010.1 It concluded that studies should not be excluded from reviews on the basis that there was “no relevant outcome data” (NROD) as failure to report review outcomes does not mean that the outcomes were not measured. Moreover, this recommendation is an expected methodological standard for Cochrane intervention reviews.2 Quality assurance screening of reviews by the Cochrane Editorial Unit has found that reviews still exclude studies on the basis of NROD. We investigated the proportion of Cochrane reviews excluding studies on the basis of NROD and whether the proportion …

ObjectivesVisual impairment following stroke is common with a reported incidence of visual impairment in 60% of stroke survivors. Screening for visual impairment is neither routine nor standardised. This results in a health inequality where some stroke survivors receive comprehensive vision assessment to identify any existent visual problems while others receive no vision assessment leaving them with unmet needs from undiagnosed visual problems. The aim of this study was to define two core outcome sets (COS), one for vision screening and one for full visual assessment of stroke survivors.DesignA list of potentially relevant visual assessments was created from a review of the literature. The consensus process consisted of an online 3-round Delphi survey followed by a consensus meeting of the key stakeholders.ParticipantsStakeholders included orthoptists, occupational therapists, ophthalmologists, stroke survivors and COS users such as researchers, journal editors and guideline developers.SettingUniversity.Outcome measuresCOS.ResultsFollowing the consensus process we recommend the following nine assessments for vision screening: case history, clinical observations of visual signs, visual acuity, eye alignment position, eye movement assessment, visual field assessment, visual neglect assessment, functional vision assessment and reading assessment. We recommend the following 11 assessments for full vision assessment: case history, observations, visual acuity, eye alignment position, eye movement assessment, binocular vision assessment, eye position measurement, visual field assessment, visual neglect assessment, functional vision assessment, reading assessment and quality of life questionnaires.ConclusionsCOS are defined for vision screening and full vision assessment for stroke survivors. There is potential for their use in reducing heterogeneity in routine clinical practice and for improving standardisation and accuracy of vision assessment. Future research is required to evaluate the use of these COS and for further exploration of core outcome measures.

Background Core outcome sets (COS) can enhance the relevance of research by ensuring that outcomes of importance to health service users and other people making choices about health care in a particular topic area are measured routinely. Over 200 COS to date have been developed, but the clarity of these reports is suboptimal. COS studies will not achieve their goal if reports of COS are not complete and transparent. Methods and Findings In recognition of these issues, an international group that included experienced COS developers, methodologists, journal editors, potential users of COS (clinical trialists, systematic reviewers, and clinical guideline developers), and patient representatives developed the Core Outcome Set–STAndards for Reporting (COS-STAR) Statement as a reporting guideline for COS studies. The developmental process consisted of an initial reporting item generation stage and a two-round Delphi survey involving nearly 200 participants representing key stakeholder groups, followed by a consensus meeting. The COS-STAR Statement consists of a checklist of 18 items considered essential for transparent and complete reporting in all COS studies. The checklist items focus on the introduction, methods, results, and discussion section of a manuscript describing the development of a particular COS. A limitation of the COS-STAR Statement is that it was developed without representative views of low- and middle-income countries. COS have equal relevance to studies conducted in these areas, and, subsequently, this guideline may need to evolve over time to encompass any additional challenges from developing COS in these areas. Conclusions With many ongoing COS studies underway, the COS-STAR Statement should be a helpful resource to improve the reporting of COS studies for the benefit of all COS users., Paula Williamson and colleagues present reporting standards for studies that report core outcome sets for health research.

Non-randomized studies of the effects of interventions are critical to many areas of health care evaluation, but their results may be biased. It is therefore important to understand and appraise their strengths and weaknesses. We developed ROBINS-I (“Risk Of Bias In Non-randomized Studies - of Interventions”), a new tool for evaluating risk of bias in estimates of the comparative effectiveness (harm or benefit) of interventions from studies that did not use randomization to allocate units (individuals or clusters of individuals) to comparison groups. The tool will be particularly useful to those undertaking systematic reviews that include non-randomized studies.

Objectives To provide information on the frequency and reasons for outcome reporting bias in clinical trials. Design Trial protocols were compared with subsequent publication(s) to identify any discrepancies in the outcomes reported, and telephone interviews were conducted with the respective trialists to investigate more extensively the reporting of the research and the issue of unreported outcomes. Participants Chief investigators, or lead or coauthors of trials, were identified from two sources: trials published since 2002 covered in Cochrane systematic reviews where at least one trial analysed was suspected of being at risk of outcome reporting bias (issue 4, 2006; issue 1, 2007, and issue 2, 2007 of the Cochrane library); and a random sample of trial reports indexed on PubMed between August 2007 and July 2008. Setting Australia, Canada, Germany, the Netherlands, New Zealand, the United Kingdom, and the United States. Main outcome measures Frequency of incomplete outcome reporting—signified by outcomes that were specified in a trial’s protocol but not fully reported in subsequent publications—and trialists’ reasons for incomplete reporting of outcomes. Results 268 trials were identified for inclusion (183 from the cohort of Cochrane systematic reviews and 85 from PubMed). Initially, 161 respective investigators responded to our requests for interview, 130 (81%) of whom agreed to be interviewed. However, failure to achieve subsequent contact, obtain a copy of the study protocol, or both meant that final interviews were conducted with 59 (37%) of the 161 trialists. Sixteen trial investigators failed to report analysed outcomes at the time of the primary publication, 17 trialists collected outcome data that were subsequently not analysed, and five trialists did not measure a prespecified outcome over the course of the trial. In almost all trials in which prespecified outcomes had been analysed but not reported (15/16, 94%), this under-reporting resulted in bias. In nearly a quarter of trials in which prespecified outcomes had been measured but not analysed (4/17, 24%), the “direction” of the main findings influenced the investigators’ decision not to analyse the remaining data collected. In 14 (67%) of the 21 randomly selected PubMed trials, there was at least one unreported efficacy or harm outcome. More than a quarter (6/21, 29%) of these trials were found to have displayed outcome reporting bias. Conclusion The prevalence of incomplete outcome reporting is high. Trialists seemed generally unaware of the implications for the evidence base of not reporting all outcomes and protocol changes. A general lack of consensus regarding the choice of outcomes in particular clinical settings was evident and affects trial design, conduct, analysis, and reporting.

Interferon beta (IFN-β) is the drug of choice for treatment of relapsing forms of multiple sclerosis and is known to reduce the frequency and severity of relapses. This systematic review determines the occurrence of neutralising antibodies (NAbs) against different formulations of IFN-β: IFN-β-1a Avonex™, IFN-β-1a Rebif™ and IFN-β-1b Betaferon/Betaseron™. The databases used in the review included MEDLINE Ovid (from 1950 to March 2015), Embase Ovid (from 1980 to March 2015), CENTRAL on The Cochrane Library (2011, Issue 4) and ClinicalTrials.gov (from 1997 to March 2015). All studies that compared the efficacy of the different formulations of IFN-β in patients with relapsing forms of multiple sclerosis including IFN-β-1a Avonex™, IFN-β-1a Rebif™, IFN-β-1b Betaferon/Betaseron™ and IFN-β-1b Extavia™ were included. Assessment of randomised controlled trials demonstrated that Avonex™ was 76 % less likely than Rebif™ to lead to the formation of NAbs. Avonex™ was 88 % less likely than Betaferon/Betaseron™ to lead to the formation of NAbs. Similar findings were also observed in the non-randomised controlled studies, with Avonex™ having the lowest risk. The formation of NAbs was dose dependent: Avonex™ at 30 μg was 64 % less risky than Avonex™ at 60 μg. Our data show that 2.0–18.9 % of patients developed NAbs to Avonex™, 16.5–35.4 % of patients developed NAbs to Rebif™ and 27.3–53.3 % of patients developed NAbs to Betaferon/Betaseron™.

Objectives About 100 000 people present to hospitals each year in England with an epileptic seizure. How they are managed is unknown; thus, the National Audit of Seizure management in Hospitals (NASH) set out to assess prior care, management of the acute event and follow-up of these patients. This paper describes the data from the second audit conducted in 2013. Setting 154 emergency departments (EDs) across the UK. Participants Data from 4544 attendances (median age of 45 years, 57% men) showed that 61% had a prior diagnosis of epilepsy, 12% other neurological problems and 22% were first seizure cases. Each ED identified 30 consecutive adult cases presenting due to a seizure. Primary and secondary outcome measures Details were recorded of the patient9s prior care, management at hospital and onward referral to neurological specialists onto an online database. Descriptive results are reported at national level. Results Of those with epilepsy, 498 (18%) were on no antiepileptic drug therapy and 1330 (48%) were on monotherapy. Assessments were often incomplete and witness histories were sought in only 759 (75%) of first seizure patients, 58% were seen by a senior doctor and 57% were admitted. For first seizure patients, advice on further seizure management was given to 264 (27%) and only 55% were referred to a neurologist or epilepsy specialist. For each variable, there was wide variability among sites that was not explicable. For the sites who partook in both audits, there was a trend towards better care in 2013, but this was small and dwarfed by the intersite variability. Conclusions These results have parallels with the Sentinel Audit of Stroke performed a decade earlier. There is wide intersite variability in care covering the entire care pathway, and a need for better organised and accessible care for these patients.

Summary Objective: Identifying the patterning of congenitally absent teeth will contribute to understanding the aetiology of hypodontia. The aim of this study was to investigate patterns of hypodontia in a group of young adults in Sheffield, UK involving specific tooth types, gender differences and maxilla:mandible and left:right correlations. Methods: The patients were 198 unrelated Caucasian young adults (86 males and 112 females) with non-syndromic hypodontia. Statistical methods included the multivariate techniques of cluster analysis and principal components analysis and associated display devices of circular dotplots and biplots. Autologistic regression was used to model the relationship of the presence or absence of a particular tooth to the status of other teeth. Results: The results revealed distinct patterns of dependence. Common patterns included either third molars and second premolars missing in all quadrants and/or combinations of these two tooth types and the incisors. The gender of the patient and the severity of hypodontia did not have a significant effect on patterns of tooth type absence. If a tooth was missing, the odds ratios that the same tooth type in the horizontally or vertically opposite quadrant was also missing were some 20 times higher than if the tooth was present. For diagonally opposite quadrants the dependence was much weaker. Conclusions: These statistical techniques are valuable for increasing understanding of hypodontia and identifying groups of patients for genetic studies.

Introduction There is evidence that the use of some reporting guidelines, such as the Consolidated Standards for Reporting Trials, is associated with improved completeness of reporting in health research. However, the current levels of adherence to reporting guidelines are suboptimal. Over the last few years, several actions aiming to improve compliance with reporting guidelines have been taken and proposed. We will conduct a scoping review of interventions to improve adherence to reporting guidelines in health research that have been evaluated or suggested, in order to inform future interventions. Methods and analysis Our review will follow the Joanna Briggs Institute scoping review methods manual. We will search for relevant studies in MEDLINE, EMBASE and Cochrane Library databases. Moreover, we will carry out lateral searches from the reference lists of the included studies, as well as from the lists of articles citing the included ones. One reviewer will screen the full list, which will be randomly split into two halves and independently screened by the other two reviewers. Two reviewers will perform data extraction independently. Discrepancies will be solved through discussion. In addition, this search strategy will be supplemented by a grey literature search. The interventions found will be classified as assessed or suggested, as well as according to different criteria, in relation to their target (journal policies, journal editors, authors, reviewers, funders, ethical boards or others) or the research stage at which they are performed (design, conducting, reporting or peer review). Descriptive statistical analysis will be performed. Ethics and dissemination A paper summarising the findings from this review will be published in a peer reviewed journal. This scoping review will contribute to a better understanding and a broader perspective on how the problem of adhering better to reporting guidelines has been tackled so far. This could be a major first step towards developing future strategies to improve compliance with reporting guidelines in health research.

In a systematic review of cohort studies, Kerry Dwan and colleagues examine the evidence for selective reporting and discrepancies in analyses between journal publications and other documents for clinical trials. Please see later in the article for the Editors' Summary, Background Most publications about selective reporting in clinical trials have focussed on outcomes. However, selective reporting of analyses for a given outcome may also affect the validity of findings. If analyses are selected on the basis of the results, reporting bias may occur. The aims of this study were to review and summarise the evidence from empirical cohort studies that assessed discrepant or selective reporting of analyses in randomised controlled trials (RCTs). Methods and Findings A systematic review was conducted and included cohort studies that assessed any aspect of the reporting of analyses of RCTs by comparing different trial documents, e.g., protocol compared to trial report, or different sections within a trial publication. The Cochrane Methodology Register, Medline (Ovid), PsycInfo (Ovid), and PubMed were searched on 5 February 2014. Two authors independently selected studies, performed data extraction, and assessed the methodological quality of the eligible studies. Twenty-two studies (containing 3,140 RCTs) published between 2000 and 2013 were included. Twenty-two studies reported on discrepancies between information given in different sources. Discrepancies were found in statistical analyses (eight studies), composite outcomes (one study), the handling of missing data (three studies), unadjusted versus adjusted analyses (three studies), handling of continuous data (three studies), and subgroup analyses (12 studies). Discrepancy rates varied, ranging from 7% (3/42) to 88% (7/8) in statistical analyses, 46% (36/79) to 82% (23/28) in adjusted versus unadjusted analyses, and 61% (11/18) to 100% (25/25) in subgroup analyses. This review is limited in that none of the included studies investigated the evidence for bias resulting from selective reporting of analyses. It was not possible to combine studies to provide overall summary estimates, and so the results of studies are discussed narratively. Conclusions Discrepancies in analyses between publications and other study documentation were common, but reasons for these discrepancies were not discussed in the trial reports. To ensure transparency, protocols and statistical analysis plans need to be published, and investigators should adhere to these or explain discrepancies. Please see later in the article for the Editors' Summary, Editors' Summary Background In the past, clinicians relied on their own experience when choosing the best treatment for their patients. Nowadays, they turn to evidence-based medicine—the systematic review and appraisal of trials, studies that investigate the benefits and harms of medical treatments in patients. However, evidence-based medicine can guide clinicians only if all the results from clinical trials are published in an unbiased and timely manner. Unfortunately, the results of trials in which a new drug performs better than existing drugs are more likely to be published than those in which the new drug performs badly or has unwanted side effects (publication bias). Moreover, trial outcomes that support the use of a new treatment are more likely to be published than those that do not support its use (outcome reporting bias). Recent initiatives—such as making registration of clinical trials in a trial registry (for example, ClinicalTrials.gov) a prerequisite for publication in medical journals—aim to prevent these biases, which pose a threat to informed medical decision-making. Why Was This Study Done? Selective reporting of analyses of outcomes may also affect the validity of clinical trial findings. Sometimes, for example, a trial publication will include a per protocol analysis (which considers only the outcomes of patients who received their assigned treatment) rather than a pre-planned intention-to-treat analysis (which considers the outcomes of all the patients regardless of whether they received their assigned treatment). If the decision to publish the per protocol analysis is based on the results of this analysis being more favorable than those of the intention-to-treat analysis (which more closely resembles “real” life), then “analysis reporting bias” has occurred. In this systematic review, the researchers investigate the selective reporting of analyses and discrepancies in randomized controlled trials (RCTs) by reviewing published studies that assessed selective reporting of analyses in groups (cohorts) of RCTs and discrepancies in analyses of RCTs between different sources (for example, between the protocol in a trial registry and the journal publication) or different sections of a source. A systematic review uses predefined criteria to identify all the research on a given topic. What Did the Researchers Do and Find? The researchers identified 22 cohort studies (containing 3,140 RCTs) that were eligible for inclusion in their systematic review. All of these studies reported on discrepancies between the information provided by the RCTs in different places, but none investigated the evidence for analysis reporting bias. Several of the cohort studies reported, for example, that there were discrepancies in the statistical analyses included in the different documents associated with the RCTs included in their analysis. Other types of discrepancies reported by the cohort studies included discrepancies in the reporting of composite outcomes (an outcome in which multiple end points are combined) and in the reporting of subgroup analyses (investigations of outcomes in subgroups of patients that should be predefined in the trial protocol to avoid bias). Discrepancy rates varied among the RCTs according to the types of analyses and cohort studies considered. Thus, whereas in one cohort study discrepancies were present in the statistical test used for the analysis of the primary outcome in only 7% of the included studies, they were present in the subgroup analyses of all the included studies. What Do These Findings Mean? These findings indicate that discrepancies in analyses between publications and other study documents such as protocols in trial registries are common. The reasons for these discrepancies in analyses were not discussed in trial reports but may be the result of reporting bias, errors, or legitimate departures from a pre-specified protocol. For example, a statistical analysis that is not specified in the trial protocol may sometimes appear in a publication because the journal requested its inclusion as a condition of publication. The researchers suggest that it may be impossible for systematic reviewers to distinguish between these possibilities simply by looking at the source documentation. Instead, they suggest, it may be necessary for reviewers to contact the trial authors. However, to make selective reporting of analyses more easily detectable, they suggest that protocols and analysis plans should be published and that investigators should be required to stick to these plans or explain any discrepancies when they publish their trial results. Together with other initiatives, this approach should help improve the quality of evidence-based medicine and, as a result, the treatment of patients. Additional Information Please access these websites via the online version of this summary at http://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pmed.1001666. Wikipedia has pages on evidence-based medicine, on systematic reviews, and on publication bias (note: Wikipedia is a free online encyclopedia that anyone can edit; available in several languages) ClinicalTrials.gov provides information about the US National Institutes of Health clinical trial registry, including background information about clinical trials The Cochrane Collaboration is a global independent network of health practitioners, researchers, patient advocates, and others that aims to promote evidence-informed health decision-making by producing high-quality, relevant, accessible systematic reviews and other synthesized research evidence; the Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions describes the preparation of systematic reviews in detail PLOS Medicine recently launched a Reporting Guidelines Collection, an open-access collection of reporting guidelines, commentary, and related research on guidelines from across PLOS journals that aims to help advance the efficiency, effectiveness, and equitability of the dissemination of biomedical information

SUMMARY It is often suspected (or known) that outcomes published in medical trials are selectively reported. A systematic review for a particular outcome of interest can only include studies where that outcome was reported and so may omit, for example, a study that has considered several outcome measures but only reports those giving significant results. Using the methodology of the Outcome Reporting Bias (ORB) in Trials study of (Kirkhamand others, 2010. The impact of outcome reporting bias in randomised controlled trials on a cohort of systematic reviews. British Medical Journal 340, c365), we suggest a likelihood-based model for estimating the effect of ORB on confidence intervals and p-values in meta-analysis. Correcting for bias has the effect of moving estimated treatment effects toward the null and hence more cautious assessments of significance. The bias can be very substantial, sometimes sufficient to completely overturn previous claims of significance. We re-analyze two contrasting examples, and derive a simple fixed effects approximation that can be used to give an initial estimate of the effect of ORB in practice.

Background Adverse drug reactions (ADRs) are an important cause of harm in children. Current data are incomplete due to methodological differences between studies: only half of all studies provide drug data, incidence rates vary (0.6% to 16.8%) and very few studies provide data on causality, severity and risk factors of pediatric ADRs. We aimed to determine the incidence of ADRs in hospitalized children, to characterize these ADRs in terms of type, drug etiology, causality and severity and to identify risk factors. Methods We undertook a year-long, prospective observational cohort study of admissions to a single UK pediatric medical and surgical secondary and tertiary referral center (Alder Hey, Liverpool, UK). Children between 0 and 16 years 11 months old and admitted for more than 48 hours were included. Observed outcomes were occurrence of ADR and time to first ADR for the risk factor analysis. Results A total of 5,118 children (6,601 admissions) were included, 17.7% of whom experienced at least one ADR. Opiate analgesics and drugs used in general anesthesia (GA) accounted for more than 50% of all drugs implicated in ADRs. Of these ADRs, 0.9% caused permanent harm or required admission to a higher level of care. Children who underwent GA were at more than six times the risk of developing an ADR than children without a GA (hazard ratio (HR) 6.40; 95% confidence interval (CI) 5.30 to 7.70). Other factors increasing the risk of an ADR were increasing age (HR 1.06 for each year; 95% CI 1.04 to 1.07), increasing number of drugs (HR 1.25 for each additional drug; 95% CI 1.22 to 1.28) and oncological treatment (HR 1.90; 95% CI 1.40 to 2.60). Conclusions ADRs are common in hospitalized children and children who had undergone a GA had more than six times the risk of developing an ADR. GA agents and opiate analgesics are a significant cause of ADRs and have been underrepresented in previous studies. This is a concern in view of the increasing number of pediatric short-stay surgeries.

Objective To determine the standard of reporting of harms-related data, in randomised controlled trials (RCTs) according to the Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials (CONSORT) statement extension for harms. Design Systematic review. Data sources The Cochrane library, Ovid MEDLINE, Scopus and ISI Web of Knowledge were searched for relevant literature. Eligibility criteria for selecting studies We included publications of studies that used the CONSORT harms extension to assess the reporting of harms in RCTs. Results We identified 7 studies which included between 10 and 205 RCTs. The clinical areas of the 7 studies were: hypertension (1), urology (1), epilepsy (1), complimentary medicine (2) and two not restricted to a clinical topic. Quality of the 7 studies was assessed by a risk of bias tool and was found to be variable. Adherence to the CONSORT harms criteria reported in the 7 studies was inadequate and variable across the items in the checklist. Adverse events are poorly defined, with 6 studies failing to exceed 50% adherence to the items in the checklist. Conclusions Readers of RCT publications need to be able to balance the trade-offs between benefits and harms of interventions. This systematic review suggests that this is compromised due to poor reporting of harms which is evident across a range of clinical areas. Improvements in quality could be achieved by wider adoption of the CONSORT harms criteria by journals reporting RCTs.

Background Off-label and unlicensed (OLUL) prescribing has been prevalent in pediatric practice. Using data from a prospective cohort study of adverse drug reactions (ADRs) among pediatric inpatients, we aimed to test the hypothesis that OLUL status is a risk factor for ADRs. Methods A nested case?control study was conducted within a prospective cohort study. Details of all medicines administered were recorded, including information about OLUL status. The odds ratio for OLUL medicines being implicated in a probable or definite ADR was calculated. A multivariate Cox proportional hazards regression model was fitted to the data to assess the influence that OLUL medicine use had on the hazard of an ADR occurring. Results A total of 10,699 medicine courses were administered to 1,388 patients. The odds ratio (OR) of an OLUL medicine being implicated in an ADR compared with an authorized medicine was 2.25 (95% confidence interval (CI) 1.95 to 2.59). Medicines licensed in children but given to a child below the minimum age or weight had the greatest odds of being implicated in an ADR (19% of courses in this category were implicated, OR 3.54 (95% CI 2.82 to 4.44). Each additional OLUL medicine given significantly increased the hazard of an ADR (hazard ratio (HR) 1.3 95% CI 1.2 to 1.3, P

Objective To evaluate the prevalence, type and severity of prescribing errors observed between grades of prescriber, ward area, admission or discharge and type of medication prescribed. Design Ward-based clinical pharmacists prospectively documented prescribing errors at the point of clinically checking admission or discharge prescriptions. Error categories and severities were assigned at the point of data collection, and verified independently by the study team. Setting Prospective study of nine diverse National Health Service hospitals in North West England, including teaching hospitals, district hospitals and specialist services for paediatrics, women and mental health. Results Of 4238 prescriptions evaluated, one or more error was observed in 1857 (43.8%) prescriptions, with a total of 3011 errors observed. Of these, 1264 (41.9%) were minor, 1629 (54.1%) were significant, 109 (3.6%) were serious and 9 (0.30%) were potentially life threatening. The majority of errors considered to be potentially lethal (n=9) were dosing errors (n=8), mostly relating to overdose (n=7). The rate of error was not significantly different between newly qualified doctors compared with junior, middle grade or senior doctors. Multivariable analyses revealed the strongest predictor of error was the number of items on a prescription (risk of error increased 14% for each additional item). We observed a high rate of error from medication omission, particularly among patients admitted acutely into hospital. Electronic prescribing systems could potentially have prevented up to a quarter of (but not all) errors. Conclusions In contrast to other studies, prescriber experience did not impact on overall error rate (although there were qualitative differences in error category). Given that multiple drug therapies are now the norm for many medical conditions, health systems should introduce and retain safeguards which detect and prevent error, in addition to continuing training and education, and migration to electronic prescribing systems.

The aim of this study was to assess the quality of reporting of harms in hypertension clinical trials identified from the Cochrane Database using the Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials (CONSORT) extension for harms reporting. Forty-one hypertension trials were included in the study. On average trials reported less than half of the items recommended by the CONSORT extension for harms (mean 9.83 items; 95% confidence interval = 8.06, 11.60). Trialists need to address the perceived shortcomings in measurement, analysis, and reporting of harms data so that the available trial data can be considered as a balanced and reliable source of evidence.

Objective To examine the prevalence of outcome reporting bias—the selection for publication of a subset of the original recorded outcome variables on the basis of the results—and its impact on Cochrane reviews. Design A nine point classification system for missing outcome data in randomised trials was developed and applied to the trials assessed in a large, unselected cohort of Cochrane systematic reviews. Researchers who conducted the trials were contacted and the reason sought for the non-reporting of data. A sensitivity analysis was undertaken to assess the impact of outcome reporting bias on reviews that included a single meta-analysis of the review primary outcome. Results More than half (157/283 (55%)) the reviews did not include full data for the review primary outcome of interest from all eligible trials. The median amount of review outcome data missing for any reason was 10%, whereas 50% or more of the potential data were missing in 70 (25%) reviews. It was clear from the publications for 155 (6%) of the 2486 assessable trials that the researchers had measured and analysed the review primary outcome but did not report or only partially reported the results. For reports that did not mention the review primary outcome, our classification regarding the presence of outcome reporting bias was shown to have a sensitivity of 88% (95% CI 65% to 100%) and specificity of 80% (95% CI 69% to 90%) on the basis of responses from 62 trialists. A third of Cochrane reviews (96/283 (34%)) contained at least one trial with high suspicion of outcome reporting bias for the review primary outcome. In a sensitivity analysis undertaken for 81 reviews with a single meta-analysis of the primary outcome of interest, the treatment effect estimate was reduced by 20% or more in 19 (23%). Of the 42 meta-analyses with a statistically significant result only, eight (19%) became non-significant after adjustment for outcome reporting bias and 11 (26%) would have overestimated the treatment effect by 20% or more. Conclusions Outcome reporting bias is an under-recognised problem that affects the conclusions in a substantial proportion of Cochrane reviews. Individuals conducting systematic reviews need to address explicitly the issue of missing outcome data for their review to be considered a reliable source of evidence. Extra care is required during data extraction, reviewers should identify when a trial reports that an outcome was measured but no results were reported or events observed, and contact with trialists should be encouraged.

Objective: To determine the extent and nature of selective non-reporting of harm outcomes in clinical studies that were eligible for inclusion in a cohort of systematic reviews. Design: Cohort study of systematic reviews from two databases. Setting: Outcome reporting bias in trials for harm outcomes (ORBIT II) in systematic reviews from the Cochrane Library and a separate cohort of systematic reviews of adverse events. Participants: 92 systematic reviews of randomised controlled trials and non-randomised studies published in the Cochrane Library between issue 9, 2012 and issue 2, 2013 (Cochrane cohort) and 230 systematic reviews published between 1 January 2007 and 31 December 2011 in other publications, synthesising data on harm outcomes (adverse event cohort). Methods: A 13 point classification system for missing outcome data on harm was developed and applied to the studies. Results: 86% (79/92) of reviews in the Cochrane cohort did not include full data from the main harm outcome of interest of each review for all of the eligible studies included within that review; 76% (173/230) for the adverse event cohort. Overall, the single primary harm outcome was inadequately reported in 76% (705/931) of the studies included in the 92 reviews from the Cochrane cohort and not reported in 47% (4159/8837) of the 230 reviews in the adverse event cohort. In a sample of primary studies not reporting on the single primary harm outcome in the review, scrutiny of the study publication revealed that outcome reporting bias was suspected in nearly two thirds (63%, 248/393). Conclusions: The number of reviews suspected of outcome reporting bias as a result of missing or partially reported harm related outcomes from at least one eligible study is high. The declaration of important harms and the quality of the reporting of harm outcomes must be improved in both primary studies and systematic reviews.

Objective: There is growing interest in the potential benefits of public involvement (PI) in health and social care research. However, there has been little examination of values underpinning PI or how these values might differ for different groups with an interest in PI in the research process. We aimed to explore areas of consensus and conflict around normative, substantive and process-related values underpinning PI. Design: Mixed method, three-phase, modified Delphi study, conducted as part of a larger multiphase project. Setting: The UK health and social care research community. Participants: Stakeholders in PI in research, defined as: clinical and non-clinical academics, members of the public, research managers, commissioners and funders; identified via research networks, online searches and a literature review. Results: We identified high levels of consensus for many normative, substantive and process-related issues. However, there were also areas of conflict in relation to issues of bias and representativeness, and around whether the purpose of PI in health and social care research is to bring about service change or generate new knowledge. There were large differences by group in the percentages endorsing the ethical justification for PI and the argument that PI equalises power imbalances. With regard to practical implementation of PI, research support infrastructures were reported as lacking. Participants reported shortcomings in the uptake and practice of PI. Embedding PI practice and evaluation in research study designs was seen as fundamental to strengthening the evidence base. Conclusions: Our findings highlight the extent to which PI is already embedded in research. However, they also highlight a need for 'best practice' standards to assist research teams to understand, implement and evaluate PI. These findings have been used in developing a Public Involvement Impact Assessment Framework (PiiAF), which offers guidance to researchers and members of the public involved in the PI process.

Background Outcome reporting bias (ORB) in randomised trials has been identified as a threat to the validity of systematic reviews. Previous work highlighting this problem is limited to considering a single primary review outcome. The aim of this study was to assess ORB across all efficacy outcomes in the Cochrane systematic reviews of cystic fibrosis. Methods Systematic reviews of interventions for cystic fibrosis published on the Cochrane Library by the Cochrane Cystic Fibrosis and Genetic Disorders Group before 2010 were assessed for discrepancies in outcomes between review protocol and full review. ORB in eligible trials was also assessed for all efficacy review outcomes. Two authors independently classified each outcome using a nine-point classification system developed by the Outcome Reporting Bias In Trials study. These classifications were used to inform the assessment of the risk of bias for selective outcome reporting for each trial. Results –46 Cochrane cystic fibrosis systematic reviews were included. The median number of primary outcomes, number of trials and participants per trial in the reviews were 3 (IQR 2, 3), 4 (IQR 2, 8) and 21 (IQR 14, 41), respectively. 18 reviews (39%, 18/46) had a discrepancy in outcomes between protocol and full review. 37 reviews were eligible to be included in the ORB assessment. When considering review primary outcomes and all review outcomes, ORB was suspected in at least one trial in 86% and 100%, respectively. Conclusions Assessment of ORB within a systematic review of a single primary outcome underestimates the risk of ORB in comparison to the assessment of multiple primary and secondary outcomes. ORB in trials is highly prevalent within systematic reviews of cystic fibrosis when assessed across all outcomes. This could be reduced by the development of a core outcome set for trials and systematic reviews in cystic fibrosis.