OBJECTIVE: To assess the capabilities of large language models (LLMs), including Open AI (GPT-4.0) and Microsoft Bing (GPT-4), in generating structured reports, the Breast Imaging Reporting and Data System (BI-RADS) categories, and management recommendations from free-text breast ultrasound reports.
METHODS: In this retrospective study, 100 free-text breast ultrasound reports from patients who underwent surgery between January and May 2023 were gathered. The capabilities of Open AI (GPT-4.0) and Microsoft Bing (GPT-4) to convert these unstructured reports into structured ultrasound reports were studied. The quality of structured reports, BI-RADS categories, and management recommendations generated by GPT-4.0 and Bing were evaluated by senior radiologists based on the guidelines.
RESULTS: Open AI (GPT-4.0) was better than Microsoft Bing (GPT-4) in terms of performance in generating structured reports (88% vs. 55%; p < 0.001), giving correct BI-RADS categories (54% vs. 47%; p = 0.013) and providing reasonable management recommendations (81% vs. 63%; p < 0.001). As the ability to predict benign and malignant characteristics, GPT-4.0 performed significantly better than Bing (AUC, 0.9317 vs. 0.8177; p < 0.001), while both performed significantly inferior to senior radiologists (AUC, 0.9763; both p < 0.001).
CONCLUSIONS: This study highlights the potential of LLMs, specifically Open AI (GPT-4.0), in converting unstructured breast ultrasound reports into structured ones, offering accurate diagnoses and providing reasonable recommendations.

OBJECTIVE: The Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) statement, first published in 2009, has been widely endorsed and compliance is high in systematic reviews of intervention studies. Systematic reviews of prevalence studies are increasing in frequency, but their characteristics and reporting quality have not been examined in large studies. Our objectives were to describe the characteristics of systematic reviews of prevalence studies in adults, evaluate the completeness of reporting and explore study-level characteristics associated with the completeness of reporting.
METHODS: We did a meta-research study. We searched 5 databases from January 2010 to December 2020 to identify systematic reviews of prevalence studies in adult populations. We used the PRISMA 2009 checklist to assess completeness of reporting and recorded additional characteristics. We conducted a descriptive analysis of review characteristics and linear regression to assess the relationship between compliance with PRISMA and publication characteristics.
RESULTS: We included 1172 systematic reviews of prevalence studies. The number of reviews increased from 25 in 2010 to 273 in 2020. The median PRISMA score for systematic reviews without meta-analysis was 17.5 out of a maximum of 23 and, for systematic reviews with meta-analysis, 22 out of a maximum of 25. Completeness of reporting, particularly for key items in the methods section was suboptimal. Systematic reviews that included a meta-analysis or reported using a reporting or conduct guideline were the factors most strongly associated with increased compliance with PRISMA 2009.
CONCLUSIONS: Reporting of systematic reviews of prevalence was adequate for many PRISMA items. Nonetheless, this study highlights aspects for which special attention is needed. Development of a specific tool to assess the risk of bias in prevalence studies and an extension to the PRISMA statement could improve the conduct and reporting of systematic reviews of prevalence studies.

BACKGROUND: Hand eczema (HE) is a prevalent disease among professional cleaners.
OBJECTIVE: To investigate how often cleaners have their self-reported HE, induced or worsened by cleaners\' occupational activities, reported as an occupational disease to the authorities in Denmark and to identify reasons for underreporting. In addition, consultation by physicians and treatment for HE among cleaners were also investigated.
METHODS: This cross-sectional questionnaire-based study included hospital cleaners at three different hospitals in Region Zealand, Denmark.
RESULTS: We included 224 out of 234 cleaners from three hospitals (response rate: 96%). The lifetime prevalence of self-reported HE with onset in adulthood was 18.3% (n = 41), with cleaners believing every case to be caused or exacerbated by their occupation. Only 9.7% (n = 4/41) of the cases were reported as an occupational disease to the authorities. The most common reasons for non-reporting were a lack of perceived seriousness of the disease (40.5%) and unawareness of the risk of self-reported HE being of occupational origin (32.4%). Remarkably, only 75.7% (n = 28/37) of workers with unreported cases had consulted a physician at some point. Additionally, among cleaners who self-reported HE attributed or aggravated by their occupation, but not officially reported as such, only 56.8% (n = 21/37) had ever used hand moisturisers, while less than 45% had ever used topical steroids or calcineurin inhibitors.
CONCLUSIONS: Our findings reveal substantial underreporting of self-reported HE, perceived to be induced or worsened by the cleaner\'s occupational activities, as an occupational disease to the authorities.

This metaresearch study aimed to evaluate the completeness of reporting of prediction model studies in patients with spinal pain or osteoarthritis (OA) in terms of adherence to the transparent reporting of a multivariable prediction model for individual prognosis or diagnosis (TRIPOD) statement. We searched for prognostic and diagnostic prediction models in patients with spinal pain or OA in MEDLINE, Embase, Web of Science, and CINAHL. Using a standardized assessment form, we assessed the adherence to the TRIPOD of the included studies. Two independent reviewers performed the study selection and data extraction phases. We included 66 studies. Approximately 35% of the studies declared to have used the TRIPOD. The median adherence to the TRIPOD was 59% overall (interquartile range (IQR): 21.8), with the items of the methods and results sections having the worst reporting. Studies on neck pain had better adherence to the TRIPOD than studies on back pain and OA (medians of 76.5%, 59%, and 53%, respectively). External validation studies had the highest total adherence (median: 79.5%, IQR: 12.8) of all the study types. The median overall adherence was 4 points higher in studies that declared TRIPOD use than those that did not. Finally, we did not observe any improvement in adherence over the years. The adherence to the TRIPOD of prediction models in the spinal and OA fields is low, with the methods and results sections being the most poorly reported. Future studies on prediction models in spinal pain and OA should follow the TRIPOD to improve their reporting completeness. PERSPECTIVE: This article provides data about adherence to the TRIPOD statement in 66 prediction model studies for spinal pain or OA. The adherence to the TRIPOD statement was found to be low (median adherence of 59%). This inadequate reporting may negatively impact the effective use of the models in clinical practice.

BACKGROUND: Retaining participants in randomised controlled trials (RCTs) is challenging and trial teams are often required to use strategies to ensure retention or improve it. Other than monetary incentives, there is no requirement to disclose the use of retention strategies to the participant. Additionally, not all retention strategies are developed at the planning stage, i.e. post-funding during protocol development, but some protocols include strategies for participant retention as retention is considered and planned for early in the trial planning stage. It is yet unknown if these plans are communicated in the corresponding participant information leaflets (PILs). The purpose of our study was to determine if PILs communicate plans to promote participant retention and, if so, are these outlined in the corresponding trial protocol.
METHODS: Ninety-two adult PILs and their 90 corresponding protocols from Clinical Trial Units (CTUs) in the UK were analysed. Directed (deductive) content analysis was used to analyse the participant retention text from the PILs. Data were presented using a narrative summary and frequencies where appropriate.
RESULTS: Plans to promote participant retention were communicated in 81.5% (n = 75/92) of PILs. Fifty-seven percent (n = 43/75) of PILs communicated plans to use \"combined strategies\" to promote participant retention. The most common individual retention strategy was telling the participants that data collection for the trial would be scheduled during routine care visits (16%; n = 12/75 PILs). The importance of retention and the impact that missing or deleted data (deleting data collected prior to withdrawal) has on the ability to answer the research question were explained in 6.5% (n = 6/92) and 5.4% (n = 5/92) of PILs respectively. Out of the 59 PILs and 58 matching protocols that both communicated plans to use strategies to promote participant retention, 18.6% (n = 11/59) communicated the same information, the remaining 81.4% (n = 48/59) of PILs either only partially communicated (45.8%; n = 27/59) the same information or did not communicate the same information (35.6%; n = 21/59) as the protocol with regard to the retention strategy(ies).
CONCLUSIONS: Retention strategies are frequently communicated to potential trial participants in PILs; however, the information provided often differs from the content in the corresponding protocol. Participant retention considerations are best done at the planning stage of the trial and we encourage trial teams to be consistent in the communication of these strategies in both the protocol and PIL.

BACKGROUND: Policymakers wish to extend access to medical records, including medical imaging. Appreciating how patients might review radiographs could be key to establishing future training needs for healthcare professionals and how image sharing could be integrated into practice.
METHODS: A pilot study in the UK using a survey was distributed to adult participants via the online research platform Prolific. All subjects were without prior professional healthcare experience. Participants reviewed ten radiographs (single projection only) and were asked a two-stage question. Firstly, if the radiograph was \'normal\' or \'abnormal\' and secondly, if they had answered \'abnormal\', to identify the abnormality from a pre-determined list featuring generic terms for pathologies.
RESULTS: Fifty participants completed the survey. A mean of 65.8 % of participants were able to correctly identify if radiographs were normal or abnormal. Results in relation to the identification of a pathology were not as positive, but still notable with a mean of 46.4 % correctly identifying abnormalities. Qualitative data demonstrated that members of the public are enthralled with reviewing radiographs and intrigued to understand their performance in identifying abnormalities.
CONCLUSIONS: In the pilot, members of the public could identify if a radiograph is normal or abnormal to a reasonable standard. Further detailed interpretation of images requires supportive intervention. This pilot study suggests that patients can participate in image sharing as part of their care. Image sharing may be beneficial to the therapeutic relationship, aiding patient understanding and enhancing consultations between healthcare professional and patient. Further research is indicated.

BACKGROUND: The availability of donated eye tissue saves and enhances vision in transplant recipients; however, the current demand for tissue surpasses the available supply. Corneal donor shortages lead to increased wait times, delayed surgeries, prolonged visual impairment, and increased inconvenience to patients requiring eye tissue transplantation. A web-based application was previously developed to facilitate easy and intuitive submission of potential donor information.
OBJECTIVE: The primary objectives of this study were to assess health care professionals\' attitudes toward the potential application and evaluate its effectiveness based on user feedback and donor registrations through the application.
METHODS: Researchers used a mixed methods approach, commencing with a literature review to identify challenges associated with donor procurement. Stakeholder interviews were conducted to gauge health care professionals\' perspectives regarding the application. User feedback was collected through questionnaires, surveys, and interviews to assess the application\'s usability and impact. An assessment of the reported potential donors and questionnaire responses were analyzed.
RESULTS: The final version of the application successfully reported 24 real cornea donors. Among 64 health care providers who used the application to communicate about potential donors, 32 of them submitted trial entries exclusively for testing purposes. The remaining 8 health care professionals reported potential donors; however, these individuals did not meet the donor qualification criteria. The majority of participants found the application user-friendly and expressed their readiness to use it in the future. Positive ratings were assigned to the layout, appearance, purpose, and specific features of the application. Respondents highlighted the automatic sending of notifications via SMS text messages and the integration of all necessary documents for donor qualification and tissue collection as the most valuable functions of the application.
CONCLUSIONS: The study indicates that donor reporting applications offer promising solutions to enhance tissue donor procurement. This application streamlined the reporting process, reduced paperwork, facilitated communication, and collected valuable data for analysis.

UNASSIGNED: Medication administration errors significantly impact patient safety, potentially leading to severe harm or fatality. Reporting such errors through active systems improves medication administration, thereby enhancing patient safety and the quality of care. However, in the context of Saudi Arabia, little is understood about the causes of medication administration errors and the obstacles hindering their reporting.
UNASSIGNED: This study aimed to explore nurses\' perceptions of the causes of medication administration errors and the barriers to reporting them.
UNASSIGNED: The study employed a qualitative descriptive design, conducting face-to-face semi-structured interviews with 43 nurses from three hospitals in Taif Governorate, Saudi Arabia, between October and November 2023. Purposive sampling was used to recruit participants, and thematic analysis was utilized for data analysis.
UNASSIGNED: The following themes emerged regarding the causes of medication administration errors: order deficiencies, high workloads and staff shortages, and malpractice. Regarding the barriers to reporting errors, the emerging themes were fear of punishment and lack of support, lack of knowledge and awareness about reporting, and lack of feedback.
UNASSIGNED: This study reveals nurses\' perceptions of the causes of medication administration errors and the barriers to reporting them. Recognizing and addressing these causes and barriers are essential for patient safety and the improvement of the healthcare environment. Efforts should be directed toward implementing interventions that address high workloads, enhance staff education and awareness, and promote a workplace culture conducive to reporting errors without fear of repercussions. Additionally, supportive mechanisms, such as feedback systems and resources for professional development, should be implemented to empower nurses to actively participate in error reporting and contribute to continuous improvement in medication administration practices.

BACKGROUND: Domestic violence, including violence against women, is a global public health concern with significant implications for women\'s health and well-being. Despite its prevalence, healthcare providers often face barriers when reporting cases of domestic violence. This study aims to estimate the prevalence of reporting domestic violence against women by physicians and to explore the barriers to reporting.
METHODS: This cross-sectional study was conducted at King Abdulaziz University Hospital in Saudi Arabia. Data were collected through a self-administered questionnaire distributed to physicians from various specialties. The questionnaire covered sociodemographic information, physicians\' experiences with domestic violence cases, and barriers to reporting.
RESULTS: The study included 400 physicians. Approximately 39.8% of physicians reported encountering cases of domestic violence, with 33.0% documenting such cases. Reporting rates varied among occupational levels, with specialists (50.85%) and consultants (38.78%) reporting more frequently than general practitioners (16.67%) and residents (28.93%). Physicians with over 10 years of experience were more likely to report (49.40%, p = 0.001). Among the various categories of barriers examined, a lower score in physician-related barriers was the only category significantly associated with higher reporting rates (p < 0.01). However, health administration- and victim-related barriers were not significant factors in reporting.
CONCLUSIONS: This study highlights variations in reporting rates among medical specialties and underscores the positive impact of physician experience on reporting domestic violence cases. Addressing physician-related barriers and promoting a reporting culture are crucial steps toward combating domestic violence in Saudi Arabia. Healthcare providers play a vital role in identifying and addressing this public health issue.

BACKGROUND: Recruiting participants to clinical trials is an ongoing challenge, and relatively little is known about what recruitment strategies lead to better recruitment. Recruitment interventions can be considered complex interventions, often involving multiple components, targeting a variety of groups, and tailoring to different groups. We used the Template for Intervention Description and Replication (TIDieR) reporting checklist (which comprises 12 items recommended for reporting complex interventions) to guide the assessment of how recruitment interventions are described. We aimed to (1) examine to what extent we could identify information about each TIDieR item within recruitment intervention studies, and (2) observe additional detail for each item to describe useful variation among these studies.
METHODS: We identified randomized, nested recruitment intervention studies providing recruitment or willingness to participate rates from two sources: a Cochrane review of trials evaluating strategies to improve recruitment to randomized trials, and the Online Resource for Research in Clinical triAls database. First, we assessed to what extent authors reported information about each TIDieR item. Second, we developed descriptive categorical variables for 7 TIDieR items and extracting relevant quotes for the other 5 items.
RESULTS: We assessed 122 recruitment intervention studies. We were able to extract information relevant to most TIDieR items (e.g., brief rationale, materials, procedure) with the exception of a few items that were only rarely reported (e.g., tailoring, modifications, planned/actual fidelity). The descriptive variables provided a useful overview of study characteristics, with most studies using various forms of informational interventions (55%) delivered at a single time point (90%), often by a member of the research team (59%) in a clinical care setting (41%).
CONCLUSIONS: Our TIDieR-based variables provide a useful description of the core elements of complex trial recruitment interventions. Recruitment intervention studies report core elements of complex interventions variably; some process elements (e.g., mode of delivery, location) are almost always described, while others (e.g., duration, fidelity) are reported infrequently, with little indication of a reason for their absence. Future research should explore whether these TIDieR-based variables can form the basis of an approach to better reporting of elements of successful recruitment interventions.