Observational data provide invaluable real-world information in medicine, but certain methodological considerations are required to derive causal estimates. In this systematic review, we evaluated the methodology and reporting quality of individual-level patient data meta-analyses (IPD-MAs) conducted with non-randomized exposures, published in 2009, 2014, and 2019 that sought to estimate a causal relationship in medicine. We screened over 16,000 titles and abstracts, reviewed 45 full-text articles out of the 167 deemed potentially eligible, and included 29 into the analysis. Unfortunately, we found that causal methodologies were rarely implemented, and reporting was generally poor across studies. Specifically, only three of the 29 articles used quasi-experimental methods, and no study used G-methods to adjust for time-varying confounding. To address these issues, we propose stronger collaborations between physicians and methodologists to ensure that causal methodologies are properly implemented in IPD-MAs. In addition, we put forward a suggested checklist of reporting guidelines for IPD-MAs that utilize causal methods. This checklist could improve reporting thereby potentially enhancing the quality and trustworthiness of IPD-MAs, which can be considered one of the most valuable sources of evidence for health policy.

Authorship in clinical trials and clinical practice guidelines is considered prestigious and is associated with broader peer recognition. This systematic review investigated female representation among studies reporting authorship trends in clinical trials or clinical practice guidelines in different medicine subspecialties. Our search strategy yielded 836 articles, of which 30 met the inclusion criteria. Our findings indicate that females are severely underrepresented in authorship of clinical trials and clinical practice guidelines. Although the proportions of females may have improved in the past decade, the gains are marginal. Notably, studies in this domain predominantly focus on first/last authorship positions, and whether females are underrepresented in other positions as collaborative partners is currently unknown. Also, authorship trends in clinical trials or clinical practice guidelines of most medicine subspecialties besides cardiovascular medicine remain under-researched. Hence, standardizing the methodology for studying gender disparity in research output for comparative analysis between different subspecialties is as urgent as addressing the gender disparity in authorship.

BACKGROUND: In 2014, an expert panel from the American Physical Therapy Association Academy of Research Evidence-Based Practice (EBP) special interest group created the Doctor of Physical Therapy (DPT) EBP Curricular Guideline (EBP-CG). This study describes faculty awareness of the EBP-CG, DPT curricular alignment with its terminal objectives, EBP-CG uses, and challenges addressing the objectives.
METHODS: DPT educators frequently use core curriculum guidelines (CGs) that articulate entry-level knowledge and skills to determine competencies. No such guidelines existed for EBP in 2012 leading to the EBP-CG development to assist educators. Few CGs have been studied for their impact on content standardization. A mixed methods design was chosen to more completely describe this CG\'s impact.
METHODS: Faculty teaching EBP in US accredited DPT programs.
METHODS: A mixed-methods design explored what EBP-CG objectives are addressed, to what expected mastery levels, and how faculty use the document.
RESULTS: Eighty-three of 252 accredited programs completed the survey; 14 respondents were interviewed. The EBP-CG was valued and viewed as reflecting curricular content. Its 33 objectives were taught by most respondents at knowledge and practice levels with independent mastery expected for 7. Interviewees described EBP as commonly practiced through group over individual projects. More EBP curriculum credits predicted more objectives taught (R = .29, R2 = .09, P = .03) and expected for mastery (R = .28, R2 = .08, P = .04). No interviewees shared the EBP-CG with clinical partners or Directors of Clinical Education; EBP carryover from classroom to practice is unknown.
CONCLUSIONS: Respondents confirmed that the EBP-CG objectives were useful and consistent with curricular content. Four EBP preparation gaps were identified: 1) limited EBP-CG awareness by faculty who teach EBP, 2) use of group over independent projects to practice EBP, 3) communication gaps between academic and clinical education settings about the EBP-CG, and 4) no consensus on minimum EBP competencies.

An explosion of antiracism in medicine efforts have transpired since 2020. However, no ethical guidelines exist to guide them. This oversight is concerning because the racism and white supremacy rife within medicine can easily thwart them. This article addresses this gap by highlighting ethical guidelines for antiracism work in medicine. We present nine core tenets derived from our experience forming the Antiracist Healing Collaborative (AHC), a medical student-led initiative committed to developing bold and disruptive antiracist medical education content. Our lessons developing and implementing these tenets can guide other antiracism in medicine collaborations striving to promote liberation and healing, rather than recapitulating the racism and white supremacy culture embedded within medicine. We close by reflecting on how these tenets have steadied our recent decision to draw AHC to a close. They have allowed us to honour what we achieved together, strengthen the relationship that formed the foundation for our activism and bolster the shared antiracism mission that will guide our individual journeys moving forwards. The first of their kind, our ethical guidelines for antiracism work in medicine can facilitate greater recognition of the risks embedded in anti-oppression work transpiring in academic settings.

Requiring authors to base their research on a systematic review of the existing literature prevents the generation of redundant scientific studies, thereby avoiding the deprivation of effective therapies for trial participants and the waste of research funds. Scientific medical journals could require this in their author guidelines. While this applies to all areas of research, it is also relevant to physiotherapy and rehabilitation research, which predominantly involve interventional trials in patients.
The aim of this study was to determine the extent to which the use of systematic reviews to justify a new trial is already being requested by physiotherapy-related scientific medical journals (PTJs). In addition, a comparison was made between PTJs and scientific medical journals with the highest impact factor in the Science Citation Index Extended (SCIE).
This meta-research study is based on a systematic examination of the author guidelines of 149 PTJs. The journals were identified and included based on the number of publications with physiotherapy as a keyword in the databases PEDro, and Medline (Pubmed). The included author guidelines were analysed for the extent to which they specified that a new trial should be justified by a systematic review of the literature. Additionally, they were compared with 14 scientific medical journals with the highest impact factor in the SCIE (LJs).
In their author guidelines, none of the included PTJs required or recommended the use of a systematic review to justify a new trial. Among LJs, four journals (28.57%), all associated with the Lancet group, required the study justification through a systematic review of the literature.
Neither PTJs nor LJs require or recommend the use of a systematic review to justify a new trial in their author guidelines. This potentially leaves room for unethical scientific practices and should be critically considered in future research.

The application of artificial intelligence (AI) in the delivery of health care is a promising area, and guidelines, consensus statements, and standards on AI regarding various topics have been developed.
We performed this study to assess the quality of guidelines, consensus statements, and standards in the field of AI for medicine and to provide a foundation for recommendations about the future development of AI guidelines.
We searched 7 electronic databases from database establishment to April 6, 2022, and screened articles involving AI guidelines, consensus statements, and standards for eligibility. The AGREE II (Appraisal of Guidelines for Research & Evaluation II) and RIGHT (Reporting Items for Practice Guidelines in Healthcare) tools were used to assess the methodological and reporting quality of the included articles.
This systematic review included 19 guideline articles, 14 consensus statement articles, and 3 standard articles published between 2019 and 2022. Their content involved disease screening, diagnosis, and treatment; AI intervention trial reporting; AI imaging development and collaboration; AI data application; and AI ethics governance and applications. Our quality assessment revealed that the average overall AGREE II score was 4.0 (range 2.2-5.5; 7-point Likert scale) and the mean overall reporting rate of the RIGHT tool was 49.4% (range 25.7%-77.1%).
The results indicated important differences in the quality of different AI guidelines, consensus statements, and standards. We made recommendations for improving their methodological and reporting quality.
PROSPERO International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews (CRD42022321360); https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/display_record.php?RecordID=321360.

Solid organ transplantation represents the best (and in many cases only) treatment option for patients with end-stage organ failure. The effectiveness and functioning life of these transplants has improved each decade due to surgical and clinical advances, and accurate histocompatibility assessment. Patient exposure to alloantigen from another individual is a common occurrence and takes place through pregnancies, blood transfusions or previous transplantation. Such exposure to alloantigen\'s can lead to the formation of circulating alloreactive antibodies which can be deleterious to solid organ transplant outcome. The purpose of these guidelines is to update to the previous BSHI/BTS guidelines 2016 on the relevance, assessment, and management of alloantibodies within solid organ transplantation.

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

暂无摘要。

Fetal growth restriction is a common obstetrical complication that affects up to 10% of pregnancies in the general population and is most commonly due to underlying placental diseases. The purpose of this guideline is to provide summary statements and recommendations to support a clinical framework for effective screening, diagnosis, and management of pregnancies that are either at risk of or affected by fetal growth restriction.
All pregnant patients with a singleton pregnancy.
Implementation of the recommendations in this guideline should increase clinician competency to detect fetal growth restriction and provide appropriate interventions.
Published literature in English was retrieved through searches of PubMed or MEDLINE, CINAHL, and The Cochrane Library through to September 2022 using appropriate controlled vocabulary via MeSH terms (fetal growth retardation and small for gestational age) and key words (fetal growth, restriction, growth retardation, IUGR, FGR, low birth weight, small for gestational age, Doppler, placenta, pathology). Results were restricted to systematic reviews, randomized controlled trials/controlled clinical trials, and observational studies. Grey literature was identified through searching the websites of health technology assessment and health technology-related agencies, clinical practice guideline collections, clinical trial registries, and national and international medical specialty societies.
The authors rated the quality of evidence and strength of recommendations using the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) approach. See online Appendix A (Table A1 for definitions and Table A2 for interpretations of strong and conditional [weak] recommendations).
Obstetricians, family physicians, nurses, midwives, maternal-fetal medicine specialists, radiologists, and other health care providers who care for pregnant patients.
Updated guidelines on screening, diagnosis, and management of pregnancies at risk of or affected by FGR.
RECOMMENDATIONS: Prediction of FGR Prevention of FGR Detection of FGR Investigations in Pregnancies with Suspected Fetal Growth Restriction Management of Early-Onset Fetal Growth Restriction Management of Late-Onset FGR Postpartum management and preconception counselling.