Search

Abstract Background Neurological disorders have had a substantial rise the last three decades, imposing substantial burdens on both patients and healthcare costs. Consequently, the demand for high-quality research has become crucial for exploring effective treatment options. However, current neurology research has some limitations in terms of transparency, reproducibility, and reporting bias. The adoption of reporting guidelines (RGs) and trial registration policies has been proven to address these issues and improve research quality in other medical disciplines. It is unclear the extent to which these policies are being endorsed by neurology journals. Therefore, our study aims to evaluate the publishing policies of top neurology journals regarding RGs and trial registration. Methods For this cross-sectional study, neurology journals were identified using the 2021 Scopus CiteScore Tool. The top 100 journals were listed and screened for eligibility for our study. In a masked, duplicate fashion, investigators extracted data on journal characteristics, policies on RGs, and policies on trial registration using information from each journal’s Instruction for Authors webpage. Additionally, investigators contacted journal editors to ensure information was current and accurate. No human participants were involved in this study. Our data collection and analyses were performed from December 14, 2022, to January 9, 2023. Results Of the 356 neurology journals identified, the top 100 were included into our sample. The five-year impact of these journals ranged from 50.844 to 2.226 (mean [SD], 7.82 [7.01]). Twenty-five (25.0%) journals did not require or recommend a single RG within their Instructions for Authors webpage, and a third (33.0%) did not require or recommend clinical trial registration. The most frequently mentioned RGs were CONSORT (64.6%), PRISMA (52.5%), and ARRIVE (53.1%). The least mentioned RG was QUOROM (1.0%), followed by MOOSE (9.0%), and SQUIRE (17.9%). Conclusions While many top neurology journals endorse the use of RGs and trial registries, there are still areas where their adoption can be improved. Addressing these shortcomings leads to further advancements in the field of neurology, resulting in higher-quality research and better outcomes for patients.

Main problem: Chronic kidney disease (CKD) is a progressive condition that affects millions of people worldwide. A standardized core outcome set (COS) was developed for CKD by the International Consortium for Health Outcomes and Measurements in 2019. This study aims to evaluate the frequency of measurement for these outcomes before and after the publication of the COS. Methods: A literature search was done to gather the phase III/IV clinical trials evaluating chronic kidney disease through ClinicalTrials.gov. Data extraction of included studies was completed in a masked, duplicate fashion. The included studies were evaluated for characteristics such as survival, burden of disease, patient-reported health-related quality of life, and treatment modality-specific outcomes. Results: Our results showed that the majority of all COS domains were inadequately measured in CKD clinical trials before and after publication of the COS. Despite the increase in COS measurements following publication, the average percent of COS outcomes measured was less than 40 % per year even after four years. Conclusion: There is a notable deficiency in the complete measurement of COS among all domains both before and after COS publication. We suggest efforts be made to improve the adoption of consistent outcome measures that would benefit the growing population of patients affected by CKD.

Introduction: A core outcome set (COS) helps standardize outcome measurements across clinical trials. Although lung cancer is the leading cause of cancer-related deaths, research exploring COS implementation across lung cancer trials remains limited. We aim to analyze the uptake of the lung cancer COS and identify potential gaps in COS adherence. Methods: On June 26, 2023, we conducted a cross-sectional analysis of clinical trials that evaluated lung cancer interventions. Our sample consisted of studies registered on ClinicalTrials.gov and the WHO International Clinical Trials Registry Platform between September 2011 and June 2023. In a masked and duplicate fashion, investigators extracted data regarding trial characteristics and COS adoption. An interrupted time series analysis was conducted to evaluate the adherence of lung cancer COS before and after its publication. Results: Of the 626 observed trials, we found no overall significant difference in lung cancer COS uptake pre- and post-publication (0.01%, 95% confidence interval: −0.16% to 0.19%, p=0.85). The most frequently measured outcomes were “overall survival” (91.69%%) and “treatment-related mortalities” (54.69%). Health-related quality of life questionnaires were typically used to evaluate outcomes in the “Degree of health” domain (49.20%). Outcomes related to “time from diagnosis to treatment” (0%), “place of death” (0.16%), and “duration of time spent in the hospital at the end of life” (1.60%) were rarely measured. Conclusions: Despite the advantages of COS implementation, adherence across lung cancer clinical trials remains alarmingly low—which could compromise data reliability and patient care. Our findings showcase these inconsistencies and emphasize the need for proactive approaches to improve uptake.

Objective Our objective of this study was to analyse all oncological clinical trials using regorafenib to create a complete risk/benefit profile for the drug.Background Creating a novel chemotherapy is costly both in time and capital spent for drug manufacturers. To regenerate what they’ve spent, drug manufacturers may attempt to repurpose their medications for new indications via clinical trials. To fully understand the risk/benefits in comparison to a drug’s efficacy, a pooled analysis must be completed.Methods We screened PubMed, Embase, Cochrane (CENTRAL) and ClinicalTrials.gov for trials of regorafenib used to treat solid cancers. Next, we extracted median progression-free survival and overall survival in months, adverse event rates and objective response rate (ORR). Studies were deemed positive, negative or indeterminate based on their pre-specified endpoints and tolerability.Results 56 clinical trials were included in our final sample, with 4960 total participants across 13 indications. Most studies (44 of 56; 78.75%) were non-blinded, and a majority were non-randomised (41 of 56; 73.21%). Trials for colorectal cancer started out as positive but became more negative over time. Cumulative risk to patients increased over time while ORR stayed consistently low.Conclusions Our findings suggest that since regorafenib’s original Food and Drug Administration (FDA) approval, the risk profile for its original indication increased. The amount of non-randomised, single-arm trials in our sample size was concerning, indicating that higher quality research must be conducted. Our results propose that regorafenib’s efficacy and safety may be more impactful in cancers other than its FDA approvals.

Abstract Objective This study aims to evaluate published clinical trials of ramucirumab to assess the risk/benefit profile and burden over time for patients. Background The burden of oncologic drug development on patients paired with increasing clinical trial failure rates emphasizes the need for reform of drug development. Identifying and addressing patterns of excess burden can guide policy, ensure evidence‐based protections for trial participants, and improve medical decision‐making. Methods On May 25, 2023 a literature search was performed on Pubmed/MEDLINE, Embase, Cochrane CENTRAL, and ClinicalTrials.gov for clinical trials using ramucirumab as monotherapy or in combination with other interventions for cancer treatment. Authors screened titles and abstracts for potential inclusion in a masked, duplicate fashion. Following data screening, data was extracted in a masked, duplicate fashion. Trials were classified as positive when meeting their primary endpoint and safety, negative or indeterminate. Results Ramucirumab was initially approved for gastric cancer but has since been tested in 20 cancers outside of its FDA approved indications. In our analysis of ramucirumab trials, there were a total of 10,936 participants and 10,303 adverse events reported. Gains in overall survival and progression‐free survival for patients were 1.5 and 1.2 months, respectively. FDA‐approved indications have reported more positive outcomes in comparison to off‐label indications. Conclusion We found that FDA‐approved indications for ramucirumab had better efficacy outcomes than non‐approved indications. However, a concerning number of adverse events were observed across all trials assessed. Participants in ramucirumab randomized controlled trials saw meager gains in overall survival when evaluated against a comparison group. Clinicians should carefully weigh the risks associated with ramucirumab therapy given its toxicity burden and poor survival gains.

Introduction: Contrast-enhanced ultrasound (CEUS) is a modality of growing interest because of its improved detection rates when evaluating lesions and better success rates when administering interventions, compared to standard ultrasound. Along with its diagnostic value, the possibilities for therapeutic innovation with CEUS are immense. While there is much discussion of CEUS and its potential applications, there is a scarcity of studies characterizing the current state of CEUS research. Bibliometric analysis, a method of gaining an overview of a body of literature, quantitatively analyzes large amounts of information within publications to reveal trends. This study used bibliometric analysis to characterize the state and nature of the 100 most-cited publications on CEUS. Methods: We identified the 100 most-cited publications on contrast-enhanced ultrasound using the Scopus database. We recorded various bibliometric data points from these publications, with additional data collected for the 25 most-cited publications. Data were analyzed via R, R studio, and VOSviewer. Results: Our analysis of the top 100 publications revealed that 38 of the listed first authors were from the United States. Eleven articles were in Radiology, six were in Ultraschall in der Medizin, and six were in Ultrasound in Medicine and Biology, with mean citation counts of 269.2, 433.3, and 291.7 per publication, respectively. The University of Virginia Health System produced the most publications in the top 100. Seventeen of the top 25 most-cited articles were clinical practice guidelines. Four of the top five papers were clinical practice guidelines pertaining to hepatocellular carcinoma. Conclusion: In conclusion, several interesting trends were demonstrated in our bibliometric analysis. The most heavily cited articles from the top 100 were published between 2010 and 2019, which is in contrast to the finding that the previous decade contained more articles published in the top 100. This trend indicates a significant scientific impact from those articles published from 2010 to 2019. The substantial number of articles addressing applications of CEUS in diagnosing and treating liver diseases correlates closely with their global disease burden; therefore, this finding potentially explains the rise in impactful research production within the field. This study is the first to characterize the landscape of CEUS research, and future studies should further this work as the field continues to develop. Thus, our analysis reveals many important findings in the current state of CEUS research and its impact on medical imaging.

Lung transplantation has proven to be an effective treatment for end-stage lung diseases. Recognizing and acknowledging the effects of health inequities pertaining to lung transplants is important for under-resourced populations. This scoping review aims to map the extent of literature on health inequities corresponding to lung transplantation and point to knowledge gaps to direct future research. This scoping review followed guidelines from the Joanna Briggs Institute and the PRISMA extension for scoping reviews. In July 2022, we searched Ovid Embase and MEDLINE for published articles on lung transplants, published between 2011 and 2021, written in English, and examining at least one health inequity as defined by the NIH. Screening and charting were both performed in a masked, duplicate fashion. The frequency of each health inequity examined was analyzed, and findings from each included study were summarized. After screening, our sample contained 33 studies. Our findings illustrate that patients living further from lung transplant centers were less likely to be placed on the lung transplant waitlist. Further, non-white patients, women, and people who lived in low-income areas were less likely to undergo lung transplantation. Non-white patients also experienced increased mortality post-lung transplantation. Significant research gaps were found regarding the LGBTQ+ community, occupational status, income, and education level. This scoping review highlights the gaps in research regarding lung transplant inequities. To improve existing research gaps, we recommend research into the following: (1) intervention studies, (2) clinical bias, (3) donor education programs and follow-up studies, and (4) geographic information systems.

BackgroundClinical practice guidelines (CPGs) inform evidence-based decision-making in the clinical setting; however, systematic reviews (SRs) that inform these CPGs may vary in terms of reporting and methodological quality, which affects confidence in summary effect estimates. ObjectiveOur objective was to appraise the methodological and reporting quality of the SRs used in CPGs for cutaneous melanoma and evaluate differences in these outcomes between Cochrane and non-Cochrane reviews. MethodsWe conducted a cross-sectional analysis by searching PubMed for cutaneous melanoma guidelines published between January 1, 2015, and May 21, 2021. Next, we extracted SRs composing these guidelines and appraised their reporting and methodological rigor using the PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses) and AMSTAR (A Measurement Tool to Assess Systematic Reviews) checklists. Lastly, we compared these outcomes between Cochrane and non-Cochrane SRs. All screening and data extraction occurred in a masked, duplicate fashion. ResultsOf the SRs appraised, the mean completion rate was 66.5% (SD 12.29%) for the PRISMA checklist and 44.5% (SD 21.05%) for AMSTAR. The majority of SRs (19/50, 53%) were of critically low methodological quality, with no SRs being appraised as high quality. There was a statistically significant association (P

Abstract Purpose To our knowledge, no study has quantified the rate of discontinuation and nonpublication of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) regarding upper and lower extremity fractures. Methods We searched ClinicalTrials.gov on September 9th, 2020, for phase 3 and 4 RCTs pertaining to upper and lower extremity fractures. Trial completion status was determined using records available on ClinicalTrials.gov. Publication status was determined using records on ClinicalTrials.gov and by searching PubMed (MEDLINE), Embase, and Google Scholar. We queried corresponding authors on trial status if a peer-reviewed publication was not identified. Results Our final analysis included 142 RCTs, of which 57 (40.1%) were discontinued and 71 (50%) were unpublished. Thirty-six (of 57, 63.2%) discontinued trials failed to provide a reason for discontinuation, the most commonly identified reason for discontinuation was due to inadequate recruitment (13/21, 61.9%). Completed trials were more likely to reach publication (59/85; 69.4%; X 2 = 32.92; P ≤ 0.001) than discontinued trials. Trials with more than 80 participants were less likely not to reach publication (AOR: 0.12; 95% CI 0.15–0.66). Conclusion Our analysis of 142 upper and lower extremity fracture RCTs demonstrated one-half failed to reach publication and two-fifths were discontinued prior to trial completion. These findings indicate the need for increased guidance in developing, completing, and publishing RCTs in upper and lower extremity fractures. Discontinuation and nonpublication of orthopaedic RCTs hinder the public’s access to collected data and negate the valued contribution from study participants. Discontinuation and non-publication of clinical trials may subject participants to potentially harmful interventions, limit the advancement of clinical research, and contribute to research waste. Level of Evidence: III.

Background: Approximately 1 in 4 adults will develop hallux valgus (HV). Up to 80% of adult Internet users reference online sources for health-related information. Overall, with the high prevalence of HV combined with the numerous treatment options, we believe patients are likely turning to Internet search engines for questions relevant to HV. Using Google’s people also ask (PAA) or frequently asked questions (FAQs) feature, we sought to classify these questions, categorize the sources, as well as assess their levels of quality and transparency. Methods: On October 9, 2022, we searched Google using these 4 phrases: “hallux valgus treatment,” “hallux valgus surgery,” “bunion treatment,” and “bunion surgery.” The FAQs were classified in accordance with the Rothwell Classification schema and each source was categorized. Lastly, transparency and quality of the sources’ information were evaluated with the Journal of the American Medical Association ’s (JAMA) Benchmark tool and Brief DISCERN, respectively. Results: Once duplicates and FAQs unrelated to HV were removed, our search returned 299 unique FAQs. The most common question in our sample was related to the evaluation of treatment options (79/299, 26.4%). The most common source type was medical practices (158/299, 52.8%). Nearly two-thirds of the answer sources (184/299; 61.5%) were lacking in transparency. One-way analysis of variance revealed a significant difference in mean Brief DISCERN scores among the 5 source types, F (4) = 54.49 ( P

Abstract. Introduction:. The primary objective of this cross-sectional analysis is to evaluate rates of discontinuation and nonpublication of Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) of therapeutic interventions to treat chronic pain. Methods:. Using ClinicalTrials.gov, a sample was obtained which included clinical trials pertaining to chronic pain. Trials were analyzed for publication status and completion status of each trial. If information was unavailable on the trial registry database, or could not be allocated through a systematic search, the corresponding trialist was contacted and data points were gathered. Results:. In our final analysis of the 408 RCTs, we found that 281 (68.9%) were published in a peer-reviewed journal and 127 (31.1%) were unpublished trials. Of 112 discontinued trials, 59 (52.7%) reached publication. In addition, 221 of 296 completed trials (74.7%) were published, and 75 (25.3%) remained unpublished after trial completion. The most common listed reason for trial discontinuation was administrative recommendations (41 of 71 trials [57.7%]), while not receiving an email reply to our standardized email from the corresponding trialist was the most common result for trial nonpublication (49 of 88 trials [55.7%]). Clinical trials funded by nonindustry sponsors were more likely to reach publication than industry-funded clinical trials (unadjusted odds ratio 1.86 [95% CI, 1.18–2.95]; adjusted odds ratio 3.01 [95% CI, 1.76–5.14]). Conclusion:. The rate of discontinuation of RCTs involving patients with chronic pain is concerning. Chronic pain affects many patients; thus, the importance of having quality data from clinical trials cannot be overstated. Our study indicates that chronic pain RCTs are frequently discontinued and their findings often go unpublished — all of which could provide crucial information to providers and patients regarding the treatment of chronic pain. We offer suggestions to enhance chronic pain RCT completion, thereby reducing the waste of resources in chronic pain research.

Background Context: Laminectomy is a common vertebral decompression procedure that has multiple potential adverse events which are not always reported in SRs. Purpose: To evaluate the completeness of harms reporting in systematic reviews (SRs) on laminectomy. Study Design: Cross-sectional analysis. Methods: Eligible studies were SRs that evaluated laminectomy for any indication. MEDLINE (PubMed and Ovid), Embase, Epistemonikos, and the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews were searched in May 2022 to locate studies for inclusion. Screening and data extraction on harms reporting and study characteristics were performed in duplicate. AMSTAR-2 was used to evaluate the methodological quality of included SRs. Corrected covered area (CCA) was calculated for SR pairs. Results: We included 26 SRs comprising 426 primary studies. Most SRs studied laminectomy for spinal stenosis, declared harms as a secondary outcome, and lacked or did not mention funding. Two SRs completely omitted harms, 9 had between 0% and 50.0% completion of harms items, and 15 had more than 50.1% completion. AMSTAR-2 graded 25 SRs (25/26, 96.2%) as ‘critically low’ and 1 SR (1/26, 3.8%) as ‘low’. We found a statistically significant association between completeness of harms reporting and outcome specification. No other associations were statistically significant. Three SR pairs had CCAs >50% and were compared for unique and shared harms. Conclusions: The completeness of harms reporting in SRs was inadequate. Because SRs often serve as tools for constructing clinical practice guidelines and clinical decision making, improvements must be made to enhance and refine harms reporting.

Purpose: To investigate the quality of harms reporting in systematic reviews (SRs) regarding hip arthroscopy in the current literature. Methods: In May 2022, an extensive search of 4 major databases was performed identifying SRs regarding hip arthroscopy: MEDLINE (PubMed and Ovid), EMBASE, Epistemonikos, and Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews. A cross-sectional analysis was conducted, in which investigators performed screening and data extraction of the included studies in a masked, duplicate fashion. AMSTAR-2 (A Measurement Tool to Assess Systematic Reviews-2) was used to assess the methodologic quality and bias of the included studies. The corrected covered area was calculated for SR dyads. Results: A total of 82 SRs were included in our study for data extraction. Of these SRs, 37 reported under 50% of the harms criteria (37 of 82, 45.1%) and 9 did not report harms at all (9 of 82, 10.9%). A significant relation was found between completeness of harms reporting and overall AMSTAR appraisal (P = .0261), as well as whether a harm was listed as a primary or secondary outcome (P = .0001). Eight SR dyads had corrected covered areas of 50% or greater and were compared for shared harms reported. Conclusions: In this study, we found inadequate harms reporting in most SRs concerning hip arthroscopy. Clinical Relevance: With the magnitude of hip arthroscopic procedures being performed, adequate reporting of harms-related information in the research surrounding this treatment is essential in assessing the efficacy of the treatment. This study provides data in relation to harms reporting in SRs regarding hip arthroscopy.

BackgroundPredatory publishing is a deceptive form of publishing that uses unethical business practices, minimal to no peer review processes, or limited editorial oversight to publish articles. It may be problematic to our highest standard of scientific evidence—systematic reviews—through the inclusion of poor-quality and unusable data, which could mislead results, challenge outcomes, and undermine confidence. Thus, there is a growing concern surrounding the effects predatory publishing may have on scientific research and clinical decision-making. ObjectiveThe objective of this study was to evaluate whether systematic reviews published in top dermatology journals contain primary studies published in suspected predatory journals (SPJs). MethodsWe searched PubMed for systematic reviews published in the top five dermatology journals (determined by 5-year h-indices) between January 1, 2019, and May 24, 2021. Primary studies were extracted from each systematic review, and the publishing journal of these primary studies was cross-referenced using Beall’s List and the Directory of Open Access Journals. Screening and data extraction were performed in a masked, duplicate fashion. We performed chi-square tests to determine possible associations between a systematic review’s inclusion of a primary study published in a SPJ and particular study characteristics. ResultsOur randomized sample included 100 systematic reviews, of which 31 (31%) were found to contain a primary study published in a SPJ. Of the top five dermatology journals, the Journal of the American Academy of Dermatology had the most systematic reviews containing a primary study published in an SPJ. Systematic reviews containing a meta-analysis or registered protocol were significantly less likely to contain a primary study published in a SPJ. No statistically significant associations were found between other study characteristics. ConclusionsStudies published in SPJs are commonly included as primary studies in systematic reviews published in high-impact dermatology journals. Future research is needed to investigate the effects of including suspected predatory publications in scientific research.

Purpose: Detrimental effects of using non–patient-centered language (nPCL) have been reported for diabetes, mental illness, and obesity, and both the American Medical Association (AMA) and International Committee of Medical Journal Editors (ICMJE) recommend using patient-centered language in medical literature. Heart failure is a common yet stigmatized disease, and nPCL may further propagate stigma. This study analyzed current use of nPCL in journals focused on heart failure research and also examined whether the journals steer authors to adhere to AMA or ICMJE guidelines regarding nPCL. Methods: Following systematic search of PubMed for heart failure-related articles published from May 1, 2018, to April 30, 2020, cross-sectional analysis was performed. Each selected article was inspected for an array of nPCL terms and frequency of nPCL usage. Chi-squared tests and multivariable logistic regressions were used to assess relationships between study characteristics and nPCL use. Results: Of the 195 articles fully analyzed, 108 (55.4%) contained a nPCL term, the most frequently used being “heart failure patient” (78.7%), “burden” (23.1%), and “suffer” (15.7%). Use of nPCL was disproportionately more common in original research articles (63.5%) and less common in case reports (18.2%). Articles that did not detail any treatment or intervention used the most nPCL (71.1%). No statistically significant association was found between a journal’s impact factor and its adherence to AMA or ICMJE recommendations. Conclusions: nPCL is widely used in publications reporting on heart failure. We encourage authors and journals to reduce nPCL to help decrease the stigma patients with this disease often encounter.

# Background We surveyed addiction journal editorial board members to better understand their opinions towards data-sharing. # Methods Survey items consisted of Likert-type (e.g., one to five scale), multiple-choice, and free-response questions. Journal websites were searched for names and email addresses. Emails were distributed using SurveyMonkey. Descriptive statistics were used to characterize the responses. # Results We received 178 responses (of 1039; 17.1%). Of these, 174 individuals agreed to participate in our study (97.8%). Most respondents did not know whether their journal had a data-sharing policy. Board members "somewhat agree" that addiction journals should recommend but not require data-sharing for submitted manuscripts \[M=4.09 (SD=0.06); 95% CI: 3.97-4.22\]. Items with the highest perceived benefit ratings were "secondary data use (e.g., meta-analysis)" \[M=3.44 (SD=0.06); 95% CI: 3.31-3.56\] and "increased transparency" \[M=3.29 (SD=0.07); 95% CI: 3.14-3.43\]. Items perceived to be the greatest barrier to data-sharing included "lack of metadata standards" \[M=3.21 (SD=0.08); 95% CI: 3.06-3.36\], "no incentive" \[M=3.43 (SD=0.07); 95% CI: 3.30-3.57\], "inadequate resources" \[M=3.53 (SD=0.05); 95% CI: 3.42-3.63\], and "protection of privacy"\[M=3.22 (SD=0.07); 95% CI: 3.07-3.36\]. # Conclusion Our results suggest addiction journal editorial board members believe data-sharing has a level of importance within the research community. However, most board members are unaware of their journals' data-sharing policies, and most data-sharing should be recommended but not required. Future efforts aimed at better understanding common reservations and benefits towards data-sharing, as well as avenues to optimize data-sharing while minimizing potential risks, are warranted.

# Introduction Spin --- reporting in a way that exaggerates benefits or minimizes harm --- has been shown to affect a clinician's perceptions of treatment efficacy. It is necessary to identify if spin is used in systematic reviews and meta-analyses due to their high degree of scientific evidence and usefulness in identifying the most appropriate clinical interventions. We aim to quantify the prevalence of spin in the abstracts of systematic reviews focused on testicular cancer. # Design Systematic reviews related to testicular cancer were accessed using search strategies created for MEDLINE and Embase. To meet the inclusion criteria, a study must be a systematic review or meta-analysis examining testicular cancer screening, treatment, or quality of life. This cross-sectional study was performed in June of 2020. Investigators performed all screening, spin data extraction, and AMSTAR-2 appraisals in a masked, duplicate manner. In addition to evaluating spin in abstracts, associations between spin and particular study characteristics, and their methodological quality were analyzed. # Results Our initial search returned 900 articles, of which 50 were included. Spin was present in 32.0% of these abstracts (16/50). We identified 7 of the 9 defined types of spin. Selective reporting of or overemphasis on harm favoring the safety of the experimental intervention was most prevalent, identified in 18% of the abstracts (9/50). Additionally, we found no significant association between spin and AMSTAR-2 appraisals or any other evaluated study characteristics. # Conclusions Our findings illustrate the need for improved reporting accuracy in systematic reviews and meta-analyses related to testicular cancer. Because abstracts are often used by clinicians to guide clinical decisions, any misrepresentation of a systematic review's findings could influence patient care.

Abstract Introduction Given that 72% of internet users seek out health information using an internet search engine (Google being the most popular); we sought to investigate the public internet search interest in cannabis as a health topic when cannabis legislation appeared on state ballots and during presidential elections. Materials and methods We searched Google Trends for “cannabis” as a health topic. Google Trends data were extracted during the time period of May 1, 2008 to May 1, 2019 for the United States (US) and select states (18) within the US including: Alaska, Arizona, Arkansas, California, Colorado, Florida, Maine, Massachusetts, Michigan, Missouri, Nevada, North Dakota, Ohio, Oregon, Oklahoma, South Dakota, Utah, and Washington when cannabis was on the ballot. These state elections were referenda, not legislative votes. We then compared the internet search interest for cannabis before and after each election. To evaluate whether any associations with changes in the volume of cannabis internet searches were specific to the cannabis topic, or also occurred with other topics of general interest during an election year, the authors ran additional analyses of previously popular debated policies during Presidential Elections that may act as control topics. These policies included Education, Gun Control, Climate Change, Global Warming, and Abortion. We used the autoregressive integrated moving average (ARIMA) algorithm to forecast expected relative internet search interests for the 2012 and 2016 Presidential Elections. Individual variables were compared using a linear regression analysis for the beta coefficients performed in Stata Version 15.1 (StataCorp). Results Public internet search interest for “cannabis” increased during the voting month above the previous mean internet search interest for all 18 bills. For the US, observed internet search interest during each Presidential Election was 26.9% [95% CI, 18.4–35.4%] greater than expected in 2012 and 29.8% [95% CI, 20.8–38.8%] greater than expected in 2016. In 2016, significant state-level findings included an increase in relative internet search rates for cannabis in states with higher usage rates of cannabis in the past month (Coeff (95% CI), 3.4 (2.8–4.0)) and past month illicit drug use except cannabis rates (Coeff (95% CI), 17.4 (9.8–25.0)). Relative internet search rates for cannabis from 2008 to 2019 were also associated with increased cannabis usage in the past month (Coeff (95% CI), 3.1 (2.5–3.7)). States with higher access to legal cannabis were associated with higher relative internet search volumes for cannabis (Coeff (95% CI), 0.31 (0.15–0.46)). Of the five additional policies that were searched as topics, only two showed an increase in internet search interest during each Presidential Election. Climate Change increased by 3.5% [95% CI, − 13-20%] in 2012 and 20.1% [95% CI, 0–40%] in 2016 while Global Warming increased by 1.1% [95% CI, − 19-21%] in 2012 and 4.6% [95% CI, − 6-15%] in 2016. Conclusion Based on these results, we expect public interest in cannabis will spike prior to the Presidential election in 2020. Of the five selected control policies, only two showed an increase in internet search interest during both Presidential Elections and neither exceeded the internet search increase of cannabis. These results may indicate the growing awareness of cannabis in the US and mark a possible target for the timely dissemination of evidence-based information regarding cannabis and its usage/side-effects during future elections. Consequently, the results of this study may be important to physicians since they will likely receive an increased volume of questions relating to cannabis and its therapeutic uses during election season from interested patients. We recommend establishing a cannabis repository of evidence-based information, providing physician education, and a dosing guide be created to enable physicians to provide high quality care around the issue of cannabis.

Abstract Background Given the central role of radiology in patient care, it is important that radiological research is grounded in reproducible science. It is unclear whether there is a lack of reproducibility or transparency in radiologic research. Purpose To analyze published radiology literature for the presence or lack of key indicators of reproducibility. Methods This cross-sectional retrospective study was performed by conducting a search of the National Library of Medicine (NLM) for publications contained within journals in the field of radiology. Our inclusion criteria were being MEDLINE indexed, written in English, and published from January 1, 2014, to December 31, 2018. We randomly sampled 300 publications for this study. A pilot-tested Google form was used to record information from the publications regarding indicators of reproducibility. Following peer-review, we extracted data from an additional 200 publications in an attempt to reproduce our initial results. The additional 200 publications were selected from the list of initially randomized publications. Results Our initial search returned 295,543 records, from which 300 were randomly selected for analysis. Of these 300 records, 294 met inclusion criteria and 6 did not. Among the empirical publications, 5.6% (11/195, [3.0–8.3]) contained a data availability statement, 0.51% (1/195) provided clear documented raw data, 12.0% (23/191, [8.4–15.7]) provided a materials availability statement, 0% provided analysis scripts, 4.1% (8/195, [1.9–6.3]) provided a pre-registration statement, 2.1% (4/195, [0.4–3.7]) provided a protocol statement, and 3.6% (7/195, [1.5–5.7]) were pre-registered. The validation study of the 5 key indicators of reproducibility—availability of data, materials, protocols, analysis scripts, and pre-registration—resulted in 2 indicators (availability of protocols and analysis scripts) being reproduced, as they fell within the 95% confidence intervals for the proportions from the original sample. However, materials’ availability and pre-registration proportions from the validation sample were lower than what was found in the original sample. Conclusion Our findings demonstrate key indicators of reproducibility are missing in the field of radiology. Thus, the ability to reproduce studies contained in radiology publications may be problematic and may have potential clinical implications.

Abstract Background The objective of this study was to evaluate the nature and extent of reproducible and transparent research practices in neurology publications. Methods The NLM catalog was used to identify MEDLINE-indexed neurology journals. A PubMed search of these journals was conducted to retrieve publications over a 5-year period from 2014 to 2018. A random sample of publications was extracted. Two authors conducted data extraction in a blinded, duplicate fashion using a pilot-tested Google form. This form prompted data extractors to determine whether publications provided access to items such as study materials, raw data, analysis scripts, and protocols. In addition, we determined if the publication was included in a replication study or systematic review, was preregistered, had a conflict of interest declaration, specified funding sources, and was open access. Results Our search identified 223,932 publications meeting the inclusion criteria, from which 400 were randomly sampled. Only 389 articles were accessible, yielding 271 publications with empirical data for analysis. Our results indicate that 9.4% provided access to materials, 9.2% provided access to raw data, 0.7% provided access to the analysis scripts, 0.7% linked the protocol, and 3.7% were preregistered. A third of sampled publications lacked funding or conflict of interest statements. No publications from our sample were included in replication studies, but a fifth were cited in a systematic review or meta-analysis. Conclusions Currently, published neurology research does not consistently provide information needed for reproducibility. The implications of poor research reporting can both affect patient care and increase research waste. Collaborative intervention by authors, peer reviewers, journals, and funding sources is needed to mitigate this problem.

BackgroundSpin is defined as the misrepresentation of a study’s results, which may lead to misperceptions or misinterpretation of the findings. Spin has previously been found in randomized controlled trials and systematic reviews of acne vulgaris treatments and treatments of various nondermatological conditions. ObjectiveThe purpose of this study was to quantify the presence of spin in abstracts of systematic reviews and meta-analyses of melanoma therapies and identify any related secondary characteristics of these articles. MethodsWe used a cross-sectional approach on June 2, 2020, to search the MEDLINE and Embase databases from their inception. To meet inclusion criteria, a study was required to be a systematic review or meta-analysis pertaining to the treatment of melanoma in human subjects, and reported in English. We used the PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses) definition of systematic reviews and meta-analyses. Data were extracted in a masked, duplicate fashion. We conducted a powered bivariate linear regression and calculated odds ratios for each study characteristic. ResultsA total of 200 systematic reviews met the inclusion criteria. We identified spin in 38% (n=76) of the abstracts. The most common type of spin found was type 3 (selective reporting of or overemphasis on efficacy outcomes or analysis favoring the beneficial effect of the experimental intervention), occurring 40 times; the least common was type 2 (title claims or suggests a beneficial effect of the experimental intervention not supported by the findings), which was not present in any included abstracts. We found that abstracts pertaining to pharmacologic interventions were 3.84 times more likely to contain spin. The likelihood of an article containing spin has decreased annually (adjusted odds ratio 0.91, 95% CI 0.84-0.99). No significant correlation between funding source or other study characteristics and the presence of spin was identified. ConclusionsWe have found that spin is fairly common in the abstracts of systematic reviews of melanoma treatments, but the prevalence of spin in these abstracts has been declining from 1992-2020.

Background Spin—the misrepresentation of a study’s actual results—has the potential to alter a clinician’s interpretation of the study’s findings and therefore could affect patient care. Studies have shown spin frequently occurs in abstracts of systematic reviews from a variety of other medical disorders and specialties. Aims Our primary aim was to evaluate whether the nine most severe types of spin occurred in systematic review abstracts’ concerning diabetic neuropathy treatments. Secondly, we aimed to determine whether spin presence was associated with the methodological quality of a systematic review. Methods A search of MEDLINE and Embase collected 1297 articles focused on diabetic neuropathy treatments, of which we included 114 systematic reviews for spin assessment. Each included study was evaluated for the nine most severe types of spin as defined by Yachitz et al. The methodological quality of a systematic review was determined by using the AMSTAR-2 instrument. All screening and data extraction were conducted in a masked, duplicate fashion. Since the final sample size of 114 was not sufficiently powered to do multivariable logistic regression, we calculated unadjusted odds ratios which evaluated relationships between spin presence within abstracts and study characteristics. Results From the 114 articles reviewed, spin was present in 7.9% of the studies (9/114), with spin type 5: “conclusion claims the beneficial effect of the experimental treatment despite the high risk of bias in the included primary studies” as the most frequent in our study. Spin types 1, 2, 6, and 8 were not identified. No association was observed between the study characteristics and spin presence, including the methodological quality of a systematic review. Conclusions Overall, spin is infrequently observed in abstracts of systematic reviews covering diabetic neuropathy treatments. When comparing our results to other fields of medicine, the field of diabetic neuropathy research publishes systematic reviews whose abstracts mostly portray the findings of the review’s full-text to reflect the results adequately.

BackgroundInvolvement in scholarly activities is considered to be one of the foundational pillars of medical education. ObjectiveThis study aims to investigate publication rates before, during, and after residency to determine whether research productivity throughout medical training correlates with future academic success and research involvement. MethodsWe successfully identified a list of 296 graduates from 25 US dermatology residency programs from the years 2013-2015. The publication history for each graduate was compiled using Scopus, PubMed, and Google Scholar. The Pearson correlation test and linear regression were used to assess the relationship between research productivity and continued academic success after residency graduation. ResultsBefore residency, graduates published a mean of 1.9 (SD 3.5) total publications and a mean of 0.88 (SD 1.5) first-author publications. During residency, graduates published a mean of 2.7 (SD 3.6) total publications and a mean of 1.39 (SD 2.0) first-author publications. Graduates who pursued a fellowship had more total publications (t294=−4.0; P

BackgroundThe emergency authorization of COVID-19 vaccines has offered the first means of long-term protection against COVID-19–related illness since the pandemic began. It is important for health care professionals to understand commonly held COVID-19 vaccine concerns and to be equipped with quality information that can be used to assist in medical decision-making. ObjectiveUsing Google’s RankBrain machine learning algorithm, we sought to characterize the content of the most frequently asked questions (FAQs) about COVID-19 vaccines evidenced by internet searches. Secondarily, we sought to examine the information transparency and quality of sources used by Google to answer FAQs on COVID-19 vaccines. MethodsWe searched COVID-19 vaccine terms on Google and used the “People also ask” box to obtain FAQs generated by Google’s machine learning algorithms. FAQs are assigned an “answer” source by Google. We extracted FAQs and answer sources related to COVID-19 vaccines. We used the Rothwell Classification of Questions to categorize questions on the basis of content. We classified answer sources as either academic, commercial, government, media outlet, or medical practice. We used the Journal of the American Medical Association’s (JAMA’s) benchmark criteria to assess information transparency and Brief DISCERN to assess information quality for answer sources. FAQ and answer source type frequencies were calculated. Chi-square tests were used to determine associations between information transparency by source type. One-way analysis of variance was used to assess differences in mean Brief DISCERN scores by source type. ResultsOur search yielded 28 unique FAQs about COVID-19 vaccines. Most COVID-19 vaccine–related FAQs were seeking factual information (22/28, 78.6%), specifically about safety and efficacy (9/22, 40.9%). The most common source type was media outlets (12/28, 42.9%), followed by government sources (11/28, 39.3%). Nineteen sources met 3 or more JAMA benchmark criteria with government sources as the majority (10/19, 52.6%). JAMA benchmark criteria performance did not significantly differ among source types (χ24=7.40; P=.12). One-way analysis of variance revealed a significant difference in mean Brief DISCERN scores by source type (F4,23=10.27; P

BackgroundColorectal cancer (CRC) has the third highest cancer mortality rate in the United States. Enhanced screening has reduced mortality rates; however, certain populations remain at high risk, notably African Americans. Raising awareness among at-risk populations may lead to improved CRC outcomes. The influence of celebrity death and illness is an important driver of public awareness. As such, the death of actor Chadwick Boseman from CRC may have influenced CRC awareness. ObjectiveWe sought to assess the influence of Chadwick Boseman’s death on public interest in CRC in the United States, evidenced by internet searches, website traffic, and donations to prominent cancer organizations. MethodsWe used an auto-regressive integrated moving average model to forecast Google searching trends for the topic “Colorectal cancer” in the United States. We performed bivariate and multivariable regressions on state-wise CRC incidence rate and percent Black population. We obtained data from the American Cancer Society (ACS) and the Colon Cancer Foundation (CCF) for information regarding changes in website traffic and donations. ResultsThe expected national relative search volume (RSV) for colorectal cancer was 2.71 (95% CI 1.76-3.66), reflecting a 3590% (95% CI 2632%-5582%) increase compared to the expected values. With multivariable regression, the statewise RSV increased for each percent Black population by 1.09 (SE 0.18, P

Introduction: We aimed to assess the reproducibility of empirical research by determining the availability of components required for replication of a study, including materials, raw data, analysis scripts, protocols, and preregistration. Methods: We used the National Library of Medicine catalog to identify MEDLINE-indexed emergency medicine (EM) journals. Thirty journals met the inclusion criteria. From January 1, 2014–December 31, 2018, 300 publications were randomly sampled using a PubMed search. Additionally, we included four high-impact general medicine journals, which added 106 publications. Two investigators were blinded for independent extraction. Extracted data included statements regarding the availability of materials, data, analysis scripts, protocols, and registration. Results: After the search, we found 25,473 articles, from which we randomly selected 300. Of the 300, only 287 articles met the inclusion criteria. Additionally, we added 106 publications from high-impact journals of which 77 met the inclusion criteria. Together, 364 publications were included, of which 212 articles contained empirical data to analyze. Of the eligible empirical articles, 2.49%, (95% confidence interval [CI], 0.33% to 4.64%] provided a material statement, 9.91% (95% CI, 5.88% to 13.93%) provided a data statement, 0 provided access to analysis scripts, 25.94% (95% CI, 20.04% to 31.84%) linked the protocol, and 39.15% (95% CI, 32.58% to 45.72%) were preregistered. Conclusion: Studies in EM lack indicators required for reproducibility. The majority of studies fail to report factors needed to reproduce research to ensure credibility. Thus, an intervention is required and can be achieved through the collaboration of researchers, peer reviewers, funding agencies, and journals.

Background: The primary aim of our study was to evaluate the effects of undisclosed financial conflicts of interest in Achilles tendon rupture repair–focused systematic reviews. Methods: Following a cross-sectional study design, we searched MEDLINE and Embase for Achilles tendon rupture repair systematic reviews. We performed screening and data extraction in a blind, triplicate fashion. Each systematic review was evaluated on the individual characteristics of the study, presence of undisclosed and disclosed conflicts of interest, favorability of results and conclusions, and the relationship between conflicts of interest and the favorability of results and conclusions. Results: Our search produced 172 total systematic reviews pertaining to Achilles tendon rupture repair; of those, only 12 were included in our study. Undisclosed conflicts of interest were found in half (6/12) of the included reviews. However, no significant association was found between conflict of interest and the favorability of results and conclusions. Conclusion: Undisclosed conflicts of interests were discovered in a large percentage of our sample. This lack of disclosure did not appear to increase the likelihood of the systematic review results or conclusions reporting favorability of the intervention being investigated. Level of Evidence: Level II.

Background: Approximately 18 in every 100 000 people have experienced a ruptured Achilles tendon. Despite the prevalence of this condition, treatment options remain contested. Hypothesis/purpose: The objective of this study was to evaluate the use of spin—reporting practices that may exaggerate benefit or minimize harm—in abstracts of systematic reviews related to Achilles tendon repair. We also evaluated whether particular study characteristics were associated with spin. Study design: Cross-sectional. Methods: We developed a search strategy for Ovid MEDLINE and Ovid Embase for systematic reviews focused on Achilles tendon treatment. Following title and abstract screening of these search returns, these reviews were evaluated for spin (according to a previously developed classification scheme) and received AMSTAR-2 (A Measurement Tool to Assess Systematic Reviews–2) appraisals by 2 investigators in a masked, duplicate manner. Study characteristics for each review were also extracted in duplicate. Results: Our systematic search returned 251 articles of which 43 systematic reviews and meta-analyses were eligible for data extraction. We found that 65.1% of included studies contained spin (28/43). Spin type 3 was the most common type, occurring in 53.5% (23/43) of abstracts. Spin types 5, 6, 1, and 4 occurred in 16.3% (7/43), 9.3% (4/43), 7% (3/43), and 5.3% (1/43), respectively. Spin types 2, 7, 8, and 9 did not occur. AMSTAR-2 appraised 32.6% (14/43) of the studies as “moderate” quality, 32.6% (14/43) as “low” quality, and 34.9% (15/43) as “critically low” quality. No systematic reviews were rated as “high” quality. There was no significant association between the presence of spin and the following study characteristics: intervention type, article discussing Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) adherence, journal recommending PRISMA adherence, funding sources, journal 5-year impact factor, year the review was received for publication, or AMSTAR-2 critical appraisals. Conclusion: Spin was present in abstracts of systematic reviews and meta-analyses—covering Achilles tendon tear treatment. Steps should be taken to improve the reporting quality of abstracts on Achilles tendon treatment as well as other common orthopedic conditions. Clinical relevance: In order to avoid negative patient outcomes, articles should be free of spin within the abstract.

Objective: To assess the influence of industry sponsorship and authors’ conflicts of interest on the favorability of results and conclusions of systematic reviews regarding osteoarthritis of the knee. Design: We searched MEDLINE, Embase, and the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews on June 26, 2020 for systematic reviews with or without meta-analyses focusing on treatment of osteoarthritis of the knee. Author COI were collected from the systematic review’s COI disclosure statement, the CMS Open Payments Database, Dollars for Profs, Google Patents, the United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO), as well as previously published COI disclosure statements. Study sponsorship was determined using information provided in each systematic review’s funding statement. Results: Our study included 53 systematic reviews conducted by a total of 279 authors. Thirty-one authors (of 279; 11.1%) had one or more COI. Fourteen systematic reviews (of 53; 26.4%) had one or more conflicted authors. Of these reviews, only two (of 14; 14.3%) reported narrative results favoring the treatment group, whereas five (of 14; 35.7%) reported conclusions favoring the treatment group. Our results showed no statistically significant association between the presence of COI and the favorability of results (P= 0.11) and conclusions (P= 0.73). Because our sample only included one industry-sponsored systematic review, we were unable to adequately assess for a relationship between industry-sponsorship and favorability of results and conclusions. Conclusion: We found no association between the favorability of systematic review results and conclusions with either the presence of author’s conflicts of interest or industry-sponsorship.

Introduction: It is predicted that erectile dysfunction will affect around 322 million men worldwide by 2025. Because of the large volume of literature on the topic, physicians often turn to systematic reviews and meta-analyses—and particularly abstracts of such articles—for clinical guidance. Thus, it is crucial that findings are not misrepresented in abstracts. In this study, we evaluated the use of spin (ie, the misreporting of study findings by overstating or selectively reporting efficacy results, minimizing harms, or making unwarranted clinical recommendations) in the abstracts of systematic reviews on erectile dysfunction. Methods: A search strategy was developed using the MEDLINE and Embase databases to retrieve systematic reviews focused on treatments for erectile dysfunction. 2 investigators independently screened the titles and abstracts from the reviews for study inclusion. Investigators analyzed the included systematic reviews for 9 of the most severe types of spin using a previously developed classification scheme and rated them for methodological quality using the revised A MeaSurement Tool to Assess systematic Reviews (AMSTAR) in a masked, duplicate manner. Study characteristics for each review were also extracted in duplicate. Results: Our search returned 2,224 articles, of which 102 systematic reviews and meta-analyses were included in the final analysis. A total of 31.4% (32/102) of systematic reviews contained spin. 8 types of spin were identified in our sample. Type 3 (selective reporting of or overemphasis on efficacy outcomes) and type 5 (conclusion claims beneficial effect despite high risk of bias) were the most common types of spin, each occurring in 10.8% (11/102) of abstracts. There was no significant association between the presence of spin and the extracted study characteristics or methodological quality. Conclusion: Spin was present in systematic reviews and meta-analyses covering erectile dysfunction treatments. Steps should be taken to improve the reporting quality of abstracts on erectile dysfunction treatment.Reddy AK, Lulkovich K, Ottwell R, et al. Evaluation of Spin in Abstracts of Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses Focused on Treatments of Erectile Dysfunction: A Cross-sectional Analysis. Sex Med 2021;9:100284.

Objective: Reproducibility of systemic reviews (SRs) can be hindered by the presence of citation bias. Citation bias may occur when authors of SRs conduct hand-searches of included study reference lists to identify additional studies. Such a practice may lead to exaggerated SR summary effects. The purpose of this paper is to examine the prevalence of hand-searching reference lists in otolaryngology SRs. Methods: The authors searched for systematic reviews published in eight clinical otolaryngology journals using the Cochrane Library and PubMed, with the date parameter of January 1, 2008, to December 31, 2017. Two independent authors worked separately to extract data from each SR for the following elements: whether reference lists were hand-searched, other kinds of supplemental searching, PRISMA adherence, and funding source. Following extraction, the investigators met to review discrepancies and achieve consensus. Results: A total of 539 systemic reviews, 502 from clinical journals and 37 from the Cochrane library, were identified. Of those SRs, 72.4% (390/539) hand-searched reference lists, including 97.3% (36/37) of Cochrane reviews. For 228 (58.5%) of the SRs that hand-searched reference lists, no other supplemental search (e.g., search of trial registries) was conducted. Conclusions: These findings indicate that hand-searching reference lists is a common practice in otolaryngology SRs. Moreover, a majority of studies at risk of citation bias did not attempt to mitigate the bias by conducting additional supplemental searches. The implication is that summary effects in otolaryngology systematic reviews may be biased toward statistically significant findings.

Objective: Our primary objective was to identify the prevalence of spin — misleading reporting practices that overemphasize benefit or underemphasize harm — within the abstracts of systematic reviews and meta-analyses focused on surgical management of osteoarthritis of the knee. Methods: A search string was developed to search Ovid MEDLINE and Ovid Embase for articles pertaining to surgical management, or quality of life after surgical management, of osteoarthritis of the knee. Titles and abstracts were screened according to our protocol, developed a priori, followed by full-text evaluation for spin in included articles. Study characteristics were simultaneously extracted with spin data and each included study received an AMSTAR-2 quality appraisal. All procedures were performed by two examiners in a masked, duplicate fashion. Results: Of the 1419 articles returned, 96 systematic reviews qualified for inclusion. 35.4% of the included abstracts (34/96) contained at least one type of spin with a total of 36 occurrences (two abstracts contained two types of spin). Selective reporting favoring benefit (type 3; 15/36, 41.7%) was the most prevalent followed by selective reporting of harms (type 6; 7/36, 19.4%). None of the abstracts contained spin types 2, 4, or 8. We found no significant association between spin and either AMSTAR-2 rating or extracted study characteristics. Conclusion: Of the included systematic reviews and meta-analyses, 35.4% contained spin in their abstract. To improve the reliability of systematic reviews and meta-analyses, researchers should act to minimize spin in future abstracts.

Purpose: To use Google search data to determine the public’s interest in learning about athletic injuries sustained by NFL quarterbacks and to investigate how long this interest persists after the injuries. Methods: We identified starting NFL quarterbacks during the 2019–2020 season online and used the official NFL injury report to determine whether an injury had occurred to a quarterback. We used the Google Trends tool to analyze search trends around a quarterback’s injuries from July 22, 2019, to October 22, 2019. Google trends data was extracted as relative search volume over time. We then compared the results to the expected search forecast derived from an autoregressive integrated moving algorithm (ARIMA) model. Results: All 6 injured quarterbacks were associated with increases (64% to 100%) in relative search volumes for terms related to their injury. Furthermore, the data showed a consistent increase in search engine activity around the injuries associated with NFL quarterbacks in the first 3 days, marking a particularly influential time frame for public engagement. Conclusion: Our data show an increase in Google traffic surrounding the injuries of prominent NFL quarterbacks within the first 3 days following their injuries. Clinical Relevance: Social media can provide a platform for patient education through increasing patient awareness and knowledge regarding athletic injuries.

Background Reproducibility is a cornerstone of scientific advancement; however, many published works may lack the core components needed for study reproducibility.Aims In this study, we evaluate the state of transparency and reproducibility in the field of psychiatry using specific indicators as proxies for these practices.Methods An increasing number of publications have investigated indicators of reproducibility, including research by Harwicke et al, from which we based the methodology for our observational, cross-sectional study. From a random 5-year sample of 300 publications in PubMed-indexed psychiatry journals, two researchers extracted data in a duplicate, blinded fashion using a piloted Google form. The publications were examined for indicators of reproducibility and transparency, which included availability of: materials, data, protocol, analysis script, open-access, conflict of interest, funding and online preregistration.Results This study ultimately evaluated 296 randomly-selected publications with a 3.20 median impact factor. Only 107 were available online. Most primary authors originated from USA, UK and the Netherlands. The top three publication types were cohort studies, surveys and clinical trials. Regarding indicators of reproducibility, 17 publications gave access to necessary materials, four provided in-depth protocol and one contained raw data required to reproduce the outcomes. One publication offered its analysis script on request; four provided a protocol availability statement. Only 107 publications were publicly available: 13 were registered in online repositories and four, ten and eight publications included their hypothesis, methods and analysis, respectively. Conflict of interest was addressed by 177 and reported by 31 publications. Of 185 publications with a funding statement, 153 publications were funded and 32 were unfunded.Conclusions Currently, Psychiatry research has significant potential to improve adherence to reproducibility and transparency practices. Thus, this study presents a reference point for the state of reproducibility and transparency in Psychiatry literature. Future assessments are recommended to evaluate and encourage progress.

Objective: This study aimed to determine the publication rate of oral and poster abstracts presented at the 2010 and 2011 Society of Gynecologic Oncology (SGO) conferences as well as the journals that most commonly published these studies, their 5-year impact factor, the time to publication, and the reasons for nonpublication. Methods: Abstracts presented at the 2010–2011 SGO conferences were included in this study. We searched Google, Google Scholar, and PubMed to locate published reports of these abstracts. If an abstract's full-text manuscript could not be located, an author of the conference abstract was contacted via email to inquire whether the research was published. If the research was unpublished, the authors were asked to provide the reason for nonpublication. The time to publication, journal, and journal impact factor were noted for abstracts that reached full-text publication. Results: A total of 725 abstracts were identified, of which 386 (53%) reached publication in a peer-reviewed journal. Oral presentations were published at a higher rate than poster presentations. Most (70%) reached publication within 2 years of abstract presentation. Abstracts were published in 89 journals, but most (39%) were published in Gynecologic Oncology. The mean time to publication was 15.7 months, with a mean 5-year impact factor of 4.956. Conclusions: A 53% publication rate indicates that the SGO conference selection process favors research likely to be published and, thus, presumably of high quality. The overall publication rate is higher than that reported for many other biomedical conferences. Keywords: Publication, Presentation, Rate, SGO, Annual, Meeting

Background Material presented at conferences is meant to provide exposure to ongoing research that could affect medical decision making based on future outcomes. It is important then to evaluate the rates of publication from conference presentations as a measure of academic quality as such research has undergone peer review and journal acceptance. The purpose of this study is to evaluate the fate of abstracts presented at the Skeletal Society of Radiology Annual Meetings from 2010–2015. Materials and Methods Conference abstracts were searched using Google, Google Scholar, and PubMed (which includes Medline) to locate the corresponding published reports. The data recorded for published studies included date published online, in print, or both; the journal in which it was published; and the 5-year journal impact factor. When an abstract was not confirmed as published, authors were contacted by email to verify its publication status or, if not published, the reason for nonpublication. Results A total of 162 abstracts were published out of 320 presented (50.6%) at the SSR conferences from 2010 to 2015 with 59.9% (85/142) of publications occurring within two years of the conference date (not counting abstracts published prior to conference). Mean time to publication was 19 months and is calculated by excluding the 20 (12.3%) abstracts that were published prior to the conference date. The median time to publication is 13 months (25th–75th percentile: 6.25–21.75). The top two journals publishing research studies from this conference were Skeletal Radiology and The American Journal of Roentgenology. These journals accepted 72 of the 162 (44.4%) studies for publication. Of the 14 authors who responded with 17 reasons for not publishing, the most common reasons were lack of time (7–41.2%), results not important enough (4–23.5%), publication not an aim (3–17.6%), and lack of resources (3–17.6%). Discussion At least half of the abstracts presented at the annual meeting for the Society of Skeletal Radiology are accepted for publication in a peer-reviewed journal. The majority (59.9%) of these publications were achieved within two years of the conference presentation. The rate at which presentations are published and the journals that accept the abstracts can potentially be used to compare the importance and quality of information at conferences.

Background Publication bias is the tendency of investigators, reviewers, and editors to submit or accept manuscripts for publication based on their direction or strength of findings. In this study, we investigated if publication bias was present in gastroenterological research by evaluating abstracts at Americas Hepato-Pancreato-Biliary Congresses from 2011 to 2013. Methods We searched Google, Google Scholar, and PubMed to locate the published reports of research described in these abstracts. If a publication was not found, a second investigator searched to verify nonpublication. If abstract publication status remained undetermined, authors were contacted regarding reasons for nonpublication. For articles reaching publication, the P value, study design, time to publication, citation count, and journals in which the published report appeared were recorded. Results Our study found that of 569 abstracts presented, 297 (52.2%) reported a P value. Of these, 254 (85.5%) contained P values supporting statistical significance. The abstracts reporting a statistically significant outcome were twice as likely to reach publication than abstracts with no significant findings (OR 2.10, 95% CI [1.06–4.14]). Overall, 243 (42.7%) abstracts reached publication. The mean time to publication was 14 months and a median time of nine months. Conclusion In conclusion, we found evidence for publication bias in gastroenterological research. Abstracts with significant P values had a higher probability of reaching publication. More than half of abstracts presented from 2011 to 2013 failed to reach publication. Readers should take these findings into consideration when reviewing medical literature.

BACKGROUND:Clinical practice guidelines contain recommendations for physicians to determine the most appropriate care for patients. These guidelines systematically combine scientific evidence and clinical judgment, culminating in recommendations intended to optimize patient care. The recommendations in CPGs are supported by evidence which varies in quality. We aim to survey the clinical practice guidelines created by the American College of Gastroenterology, report the level of evidence supporting their recommendations, and identify areas where evidence can be improved with additional research. METHODS:We extracted 1328 recommendations from 39 clinical practice guidelines published by the American College of Gastroenterology. Several of the clinical practice guidelines used the differing classifications of evidence for their recommendations. To standardize our results, we devised a uniform system for evidence. RESULTS:A total of 39 clinical practice guidelines were surveyed in our study. Together they account for 1328 recommendations. 693 (52.2%) of the recommendations were based on low evidence, indicating poor evidence or expert opinion. Among individual guidelines, 13/39 (33.3%) had no recommendations based on high evidence. CONCLUSION:Very few recommendations made by the American College of Gastroenterology are supported by high levels of evidence. More than half of all recommendations made by the American College of Gastroenterology are based on low-quality evidence or expert opinion.

Objective: Manual searches are supplemental approaches to database searches to identify additional primary studies for systematic reviews. The authors argue that these manual approaches, in particular hand-searching and perusing reference lists, are often considered the same yet lead to different outcomes. Methods: We conducted a PubMed search for systematic reviews in the top 10 dermatology journals (January 2006–January 2016). After screening, the final sample comprised 292 reviews. Statements related to manual searches were extracted from each review and categorized by the primary and secondary authors. Each statement was categorized as either ‘‘Search of Reference List,’’ ‘‘Hand Search,’’ ‘‘Both,’’ or ‘‘Unclear.’’ Results: Of the 292 systematic reviews included in our sample, 143 reviews (48.97%) did not report a hand-search or scan of reference lists. One-hundred thirty-six reviews (46.58%) reported searches of reference lists, while 4 reviews (1.37%) reported systematic hand-searches. Three reviews (1.03%) reported use of both hand-searches and scanning reference lists. Six reviews (2.05%) were classified as unclear due to vague wording. Conclusions: Authors of systematic reviews published in dermatology journals in our study sample scanned reference lists more frequently than they conducted hand-searches, possibly contributing to biased search outcomes. We encourage systematic reviewers to routinely practice hand-searching in order to minimize bias.

With efforts to combat opioid use disorder, there is an increased interest in clinical practice guidelines (CPGs) for opioid use disorder treatments. No literature exists examining the quality of systematic reviews used in opioid use disorder CPGs. This study aims to describe the methodological quality and reporting clarity of systematic reviews (SRs) used to create CPGs for opioid use disorder.From June to July 2016 guideline clearinghouses and medical literature databases were searched for relevant CPGs used in the treatment of opioid use disorder. Included CPGs must have been recognized by a national organization. SRs from the reference section of each CPG was scored by using AMSTAR (a measurement tool to assess the methodological quality of systematic reviews) tool and PRISMA (preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses) checklist.Seventeen CPGs from 2006-2016 were included in the review. From these, 57 unique SRs were extracted. SRS comprised 0.28% to 17.92% of all references found in the CPGs. All SRs obtained moderate or high methodological quality score on the AMSTAR tool. All reviews met at least 70% of PRISMA criteria. In PRISMA, underperforming areas included accurate title labeling, protocol registration, and risk of bias. Underperforming areas in AMSTAR included conflicts of interest, funding, and publication bias. A positive correlation was found between AMSTAR and PRISMA scores (r = .79).Although the SRs in the CPGs were of good quality, there are still areas for improvement. Systematic reviewers should consult PRISMA and AMSTAR when conducting and reporting reviews. It is important for CPG developers to consider methodological quality as a factor when developing CPG recommendations, recognizing that the quality of systematic reviews underpinning guidelines does not necessarily correspond to the quality of the guideline itself.

Selective outcome reporting is a significant methodological concern. Comparisons between the outcomes reported in clinical trial registrations and those later published allow investigators to understand the extent of selection bias among trialists. We examined the possibility of selective outcome reporting in randomized controlled trials (RCTs) published in neurology journals.We searched PubMed for randomized controlled trials from Jan 1, 2010 -Dec 31, 2015 published in the top 3 impact factor neurology journals. These articles were screened according to specific inclusion criteria. Each author individually extracted data from trials following a standardized protocol. A second author verified each extracted element and discrepancies were resolved. Consistency between registered and published outcomes was evaluated and correlations between discrepancies and funding, journal, and temporal trends were examined.180 trials were included for analysis. 10 (6%) primary outcomes were demoted, 38 (21%) primary outcomes were omitted from the publication, and 61 (34%) unregistered primary outcomes were added to the published report. There were 18 (10%) cases of secondary outcomes being upgraded to primary outcomes in the publication, and there were 53 (29%) changes in timing of assessment. Of 82 (46%) major discrepancies with reported p-values, 54 (66.0%) favored publication of statistically significant results.Across trials, we found 180 major discrepancies. 66% of major discrepancies with a reported p-value (n = 82) favored statistically significant results. These results suggest a need within neurology to provide more consistent and timely registration of outcomes.

Selective reporting bias occurs when chance or selective outcome reporting rather than the intervention contributes to group differences. The prevailing concern about selective reporting bias is the possibility of results being modified towards specific conclusions. In this study, we evaluate randomized controlled trials (RCTs) published in hematology journals, a group in which selective outcome reporting has not yet been explored.Our primary goal was to examine discrepancies between the reported primary and secondary outcomes in registered and published RCTs concerning hematological malignancies reported in hematology journals with a high impact factor. The secondary goals were to address whether outcome reporting discrepancies favored statistically significant outcomes, whether a pattern existed between the funding source and likelihood of outcome reporting bias, and whether temporal trends were present in outcome reporting bias. For trials with major outcome discrepancies, we contacted trialists to determine reasons for these discrepancies. Trials published between January 1, 2010 and December 31, 2015 in Blood; British Journal of Haematology; American Journal of Hematology; Leukemia; and Haematologica were included.Of 499 RCTs screened, 109 RCTs were included. Our analysis revealed 118 major discrepancies and 629 total discrepancies. Among the 118 discrepancies, 30 (25.4%) primary outcomes were demoted, 47 (39.8%) primary outcomes were omitted, and 30 (25.4%) primary outcomes were added. Three (2.5%) secondary outcomes were upgraded to a primary outcome. The timing of assessment for a primary outcome changed eight (6.8%) times. Thirty-one major discrepancies were published with a P-value and twenty-five (80.6%) favored statistical significance. A majority of authors whom we contacted cited a pre-planned subgroup analysis as a reason for outcome changes.Our results suggest that outcome changes occur frequently in hematology trials. Because RCTs ultimately underpin clinical judgment and guide policy implementation, selective reporting could pose a threat to medical decision making.

Recent evidence suggests a lack of standardization of shoulder arthroplasty outcomes. This issue is a limiting factor in systematic reviews. Core outcome set (COS) methodology could address this problem by delineating a minimum set of outcomes for measurement in all shoulder arthroplasty trials.A ClinicalTrials.gov search yielded 114 results. Eligible trials were coded on the following characteristics: study status, study type, arthroplasty type, sample size, measured outcomes, outcome measurement device, specific metric of measurement, method of aggregation, outcome classification, and adverse events.Sixty-six trials underwent data abstraction and data synthesis. Following abstraction, 383 shoulder arthroplasty outcomes were organized into 11 outcome domains. The most commonly reported outcomes were shoulder outcome score (n = 58), pain (n = 33), and quality of life (n = 15). The most common measurement devices were the Constant-Murley Shoulder Outcome Score (n = 38) and American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons Shoulder Score (n = 33). Temporal patterns of outcome use was also found.Our study suggests the need for greater standardization of outcomes and instruments. The lack of consistency across trials indicates that developing a core outcome set for shoulder arthroplasty trials would be worthwhile. Such standardization would allow for more effective comparison across studies in systematic reviews, while at the same time consider important outcomes that may be underrepresented otherwise. This review of outcomes provides an evidence-based foundation for the development of a COS for shoulder arthroplasty.

With the intent of improving transparency in clinical research, the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors (ICMJE) established guidelines in 2005 regarding prospective clinical trial registration. This action worked to address bias related to selective outcome reporting in the medical literature. The objective of this study was to assess and characterize the quality of registration of clinical trials appearing in shoulder arthroplasty-related medical journals.All randomized trials involving human subjects, pertaining to shoulder arthroplasty, published between July 1, 2005 and December 31, 2015, and indexed in either PubMed or SportDISCUS were analyzed. We assessed the prevalence of registration, the timing of registration relative to patient enrollment periods, and the variable rates of orthopedic journal compliance with ICMJE and Food and Drug Administration clinical registration standards for our study.Of the 382 articles identified, 345 (90.3%) were excluded due to failure to meet inclusion criteria. From the remaining 37, only 12 (32.4%) studies were found to be registered in a trial registry. Ten (10/12, 83.3%) of these provided their registration information within the body of the article. None of the included studies from ICMJE-recognized journals were registered. From 34 included studies from non-ICMJE recognized journals, 12 (35.3%) were registered.The level of compliance with clinical trial registration guidelines in the decade since their release among shoulder arthroplasty trials in orthopedic journals is poor. Given the importance of the issue, the prevalence of the problem, and the fact that many other medical specialties have already made efforts to improve ICMJE compliance, further work on the part of orthopedic surgery journal authors and editors is needed to ensure the publication of unbiased results.UMIN000022487.

Purpose: Traditional approaches to blueprint creation may focus on fine-grained detail at the expense of important foundational concepts. The purpose of this study was to develop a method for constructing an assessment blueprint to guide the creation of a new post-test for a two-day prehospital emergency medical services training program. Methods: In order to create the blueprint, we first determined the proportions of the total classroom and home-study minutes associated with the lower- and higher-order cognitive objectives of each chapter of the textbook and the two-day classroom activities during training courses conducted from January to April 2015. These proportions were then applied to a 50-question test structure in order to calculate the number of desired questions by chapter and content type. Results: Our blueprint called for the test to contain an almost even split of lower- and higher-order cognitive questions. One-best-answer multiple choice items and extended matching-type items were written to assess lower- and higher-order cognitive content, respectively. Conclusion: We report the first known application of an assessment blueprint to a prehospital professional development education program. Our approach to blueprint creation is computationally straightforward and could be easily adopted by a group of instructors with a basic understanding of lower- and higher-order cognitive constructs. By blueprinting at the chapter level, as we have done, item-writers should be more inclined to construct questions that focus on important central themes or procedures.

We examined the use of clinical trials registries in published systematic reviews and meta-analyses from clinical neurology. A review of publications between January 1, 2008 and December 31, 2014 from five neuroscience journals (Annals of Neurology, Brain, Lancet Neurology, Neurology, and The Neuroscientist) was performed to identify eligible systematic reviews. The systematic reviews comprising the final sample were independently appraised to determine if clinical trials registries had been included as part of the search process. Studies acknowledging the use of a trials registry were further examined to determine whether trial data had been incorporated into the analysis. The initial search yielded 194 studies, of which 78 systematic reviews met the selection criteria. Of those, five acknowledged the use of a specific clinical trials registry: four reviewed unpublished trial data and two incorporated unpublished trial data into their results. Based on our sample of systematic reviews, there was no increase in the use of trials registries in systematic review searches over time. Few systematic reviews published in clinical neurology journals included data from relevant clinical trials registries.

In this paper, we review and discuss ten common methodological mistakes found in retrospective chart reviews. The retrospective chart review is a widely applicable research methodology that can be used by healthcare disciplines as a means to direct subsequent prospective investigations. In many cases in this review, we have also provided suggestions or accessible resources that researchers can apply as a “best practices” guide when planning, conducting, or reviewing this investigative method.