UNASSIGNED: News media reporting of suicide may influence the masses toward or against suicidal behavior. So, responsible reporting by news media is important to protect vulnerable people from the deleterious effects of media reporting. World Health Organization has issued guidelines for media reporting of suicide in this regard. We planned this research to evaluate the quality of online news media reports of suicide and attempted suicides in India.
UNASSIGNED: We assessed a total of 210 news reports about suicide and attempted suicides (70 English, 70 Malayalam, and 70 Hindi) to evaluate the reporting of harmful and protective characteristics in news according to the World Health Organization guidelines for reporting suicide in media.
UNASSIGNED: We found all three language media reported almost all potentially harmful characteristics with gender (100%), location/site of suicide in the headline (97.61%), precipitating life events (95.24%), mentioning term \'Suicide\' in the headline (98.10%), monocausal explanation for suicidality (90.95%), suicide method in the headline (90.95%), an accompanying photo (92.38%), and suicide method (93.81%) being reported with highest frequency. Potentially protective characteristics were not included in most news reports with poor focus on awareness information. Vernacular language media were poor as compared to English news media about the quality of reporting suicide.
UNASSIGNED: We found poor adherence to reporting guidelines by online news media for reporting of suicide with poor coverage of educative and awareness information for the general public. It underlines the need for improving awareness among media professionals about responsible reporting of suicide.

To assess improvement in the completeness of reporting coronavirus (COVID-19) prediction models after the peer review process.
Studies included in a living systematic review of COVID-19 prediction models, with both preprint and peer-reviewed published versions available, were assessed. The primary outcome was the change in percentage adherence to the transparent reporting of a multivariable prediction model for individual prognosis or diagnosis (TRIPOD) reporting guidelines between pre-print and published manuscripts.
Nineteen studies were identified including seven (37%) model development studies, two external validations of existing models (11%), and 10 (53%) papers reporting on both development and external validation of the same model. Median percentage adherence among preprint versions was 33% (min-max: 10 to 68%). The percentage adherence of TRIPOD components increased from preprint to publication in 11/19 studies (58%), with adherence unchanged in the remaining eight studies. The median change in adherence was just 3 percentage points (pp, min-max: 0-14 pp) across all studies. No association was observed between the change in percentage adherence and preprint score, journal impact factor, or time between journal submission and acceptance.
The preprint reporting quality of COVID-19 prediction modeling studies is poor and did not improve much after peer review, suggesting peer review had a trivial effect on the completeness of reporting during the pandemic.

Reporting guidelines are tools to help improve the transparency, completeness, and clarity of published articles in health research. Specifically, the CONSORT (Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials) and SPIRIT (Standard Protocol Items: Recommendations for Interventional Trials) statements provide evidence-based guidance on what to include in randomised trial articles and protocols to guarantee the efficacy of interventions. These guidelines are subsequently described and discussed in journal articles and used to produce checklists. Determining the online impact (i.e., number and type of links received) of these articles can provide insights into the dissemination of reporting guidelines in broader environments (web-at-large) than simply that of the scientific publications that cite them. To address the technical limitations of link analysis, here the Debug-Validate-Access-Find (DVAF) method is designed and implemented to measure different facets of the guidelines\' online impact. A total of 65 articles related to 38 reporting guidelines are taken as a baseline, providing 240,128 URL citations, which are then refined, analysed, and categorised using the DVAF method. A total of 15,582 links to journal articles related to the CONSORT and SPIRIT initiatives were identified. CONSORT 2010 and SPIRIT 2013 were the reporting guidelines that received most links (URL citations) from other online objects (5328 and 2190, respectively). Overall, the online impact obtained is scattered (URL citations are received by different article URL IDs, mainly from link-based DOIs), narrow (limited number of linking domain names, half of articles are linked from fewer than 29 domain names), concentrated (links come from just a few academic publishers, around 60% from publishers), non-reputed (84% of links come from dubious websites and fake domain names) and highly decayed (89% of linking domain names were not accessible at the time of the analysis). In light of these results, it is concluded that the online impact of these guidelines could be improved, and a set of recommendations are proposed to this end.
UNASSIGNED: The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1007/s11192-022-04542-z.

OBJECTIVE: SPIRIT (Standard Protocol Items: Recommendations for Interventional Trials) and CONSORT (Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials) statements have been shown to improve the quality of reporting of trial protocols and randomized controlled trials. Extensions to the SPIRIT and CONSORT statements specific to certain interventions have the potential to address methodological considerations that would otherwise be overlooked. The aim of this protocol is to describe the methods to develop reporting guidelines for clinical trial protocols and reports of implantable neurostimulation devices.
METHODS: The SPIRIT-iNeurostim and CONSORT-iNeurostim extensions will be developed through a staged consensus process involving literature review and expert consultation. The initial list of candidate items will be informed by findings from previous systematic reviews and published protocols and clinical trials of implantable neurostimulation devices. The candidate items will be included in a two-round Delphi survey. In the first round, participants will be invited to vote on the importance of each item and to suggest additional relevant items. In the second round, participants will be invited to re-score the items considering feedback received and the suggested additional items. A consensus meeting will then take place to discuss the results of the Delphi survey and reach consensus on the items to include in the extensions.
CONCLUSIONS: Development of the SPIRIT-iNeurostim and CONSORT-iNeurostim extensions has the potential to lead to improvements and increase in transparency of the reporting of clinical trial protocols and reports of implantable neurostimulation devices.

BACKGROUND: Reporting quality within the neurosurgical literature is low, limiting the ability of journals to act as gatekeepers for evidence-based neurosurgical care. Journal policies during article submission aim to improve reporting quality. We conducted a meta-science study characterizing the reporting policies of neurosurgical journals and other related peer-reviewed publications.
METHODS: Journals were retrieved in 7 searches using Journal Citation Reports and Google Scholar. Characteristics, impact metrics, and submission policies were extracted.
RESULTS: Of 486 results, 54 journals were included, including 27 neurosurgical and 27 related topical journals. Thirty-eight (70.4%) adopted authorship guidelines and 20 (37.0%) disclosure standards of the International Council of Medical Journal Editors. Twenty-six (48.1%) required data availability statement and 33 (61.1%) clinical trials registration. Twenty-one (38.9%) required and 11 (20.4%) recommended adherence to reporting guidelines. Twenty (37.0%) endorsed EQUATOR network guidelines. PRISMA was mentioned by 30 (55.6%) journals, CONSORT by 28 (51.9%), and STROBE by 18 (33.3%). Among neurosurgical journals, factors associated with a requirement or recommendation to follow reporting guidelines among neurosurgical journals included impact factor (P = 0.0013), Article Influence Score (P = 0.0236), SCImago h-index (P = 0.0152), SCImago journal rank (P = 0.002), and CiteScore (P = 0.0023), as well as recommendations pertaining to International Council of Medical Journal Editors authorship guidelines (P = 0.0085), ORCID (P = 0.014), clinical trials registration (P = 0.0369), or data availability statement (P = 0.0047). CONSORT, PRISMA, or STROBE delineations were significantly associated with the mention of another guideline (P < 0.01).
CONCLUSIONS: Neurosurgical journal submission policies are inconsistent. Frameworks to improve reporting quality are uncommonly used. Increasing rigor and standardization of reporting policies across journals publishers may improve quality.

Bone mineral density, measured by dual X-ray absorptiometry (DXA), is the gold standard for diagnosis of osteoporosis. The utility of DXA relies on the accuracy of scan acquisition, interpretation of data, and the adequacy of reports. The International Society for Clinical Densitometry (ISCD) has published guidelines regarding minimum reporting guidelines. This study assessed whether DXA reports for patients receiving care at an academic teaching hospital adhere to these reporting standards, and determine whether differences exist depending on patient factors and the imaging service.
Patients aged ≥18 years, receiving care at specialist outpatient clinics between January 1, 2018 and December 31, 2019, with a DXA report available, were eligible for inclusion. DXA reports were manually reviewed for adherence to ISCD guidelines, with each criterion scored as one point, giving a total score of 14 for baseline DXA scans and 18 for repeat DXA scans. The score was then converted to a percentage.
Of 459 DXA scans included, 214 were performed internally at our hospital and 245 performed at 23 external imaging services. Mean (SD) patient age was 60 (16.3) years, and 75.8% were female. The overall median (IQR) report score was 57.1% (42.9, 82.4). ISCD criteria with the lowest scores were recommendation and timing of future DXA scans (included in 1.1% of reports) and investigation for secondary causes of osteoporosis (included in 1.2% of reports). Reports performed internally had significantly higher scores than those performed externally, after adjusting for age, sex, indication, and type of scan (incidence rate ratio 1.83, 95% confidence interval 1.77, 1.89). Baseline DXA reports had slightly higher scores than repeat DXA scans, and, among external imaging services, rural services had higher scores than metropolitan services.
This study, the largest comprehensive evaluation of DXA reports, highlights significant deficiencies and variation in report standards between imaging services. This has potential implications for osteoporosis diagnosis and management.

Case reports have fulfilled an important role in the development of anaesthesia and continue to be highly relevant to modern practice. Despite this, they are sometimes criticised for being insufficiently rigorous to meaningfully inform clinical practice or research design. Reporting checklists are a useful tool to improve rigour in research and, although case report checklists have previously been developed, no existing checklist focuses on the peri-operative setting. In order to address the need for a case reports checklist that better accommodates peri-operative care, we used an established tool as the basis for developing the 12-item Anaesthesia Case Report checklist. This was refined using an iterative approach through feedback from journal editors with experience of handling case reports, patient and public involvement, and trialling its use on Anaesthesia Reports submissions. The Anaesthesia Case Report checklist differs from existing checklists by aligning with peri-operative practice; it places less emphasis on making diagnoses and focuses on the way in which clinical challenges, for example, related to the patient\'s comorbidities or operative interventions, are addressed. Adopting a standardised approach to the content of case reports presents clear benefits to authors, editors and peer reviewers through streamlining the processes involved in writing and publication. The Anaesthesia Case Report checklist provides a pragmatic framework for comprehensive and transparent reporting. We hope it will facilitate the authorship of high-quality case reports with the potential to further improve the quality and safety of peri-operative care.

This study aimed to assess if the Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials (CONSORT) endorsement by journals is associated with improved completeness of reporting of randomized clinical trials (RCTs) in dentistry.
We searched for RCTs in dentistry indexed/published on PubMed in 2017. Study selection was undertaken by two reviewers independently. Data related to the general characteristics, reports of methodological characteristics, and whether the trial report was published in a journal that endorses the CONSORT Statement were extracted by two reviewers. Descriptive statistics were used to present the data surrounding the general and methodological characteristics of the included studies. We explored differences in the reporting of 12 methodological items between journals that endorsed CONSORT and those that did not.
Five hundred and thirty three reports were included. The main area was implant dentistry with 101 articles (18.9%). Most studies had a parallel design (75.8%), performed at a single center (89.3%) and presenting two groups of comparison (75.6%). The median number of sample size was 50 (interquartile range: 31-90). Six of the 12 methodologic items were reported more often for RCTs published in journals that endorsed CONSORT than in journals that did not.
CONSORT endorsement by journals is linked to improvement in the quality of RCT reports in dentistry.

BACKGROUND: The PROCESS guidelines were published in 2016 to provide a structure for reporting surgical case series. The PROCESS guidelines have since been widely endorsed by a number of journals. The requirement to report compliance with each item outlined in the PROCESS statement has improved the reporting transparency of case series across a number of surgical specialties. Here, we undertook a new Delphi consensus exercise to update the PROCESS guidelines.
METHODS: All members of the previous Delphi group were invited to participate. In addition, researchers, editors, and reviewers who have previously published or reviewed case series with the International Journal of Surgery were invited to collaborate. An online questionnaire was sent to participants asking them to rate their agreement with amendments to each of the 29 items.
RESULTS: 140 experts were invited to participate, 56 people agreed to participate, and 45 (80%) recipients completed the survey. There was a high level of agreement amongst the expert group, and unanimous consensus was reached in the first round. All except three proposed items were accepted, and the original guidelines were modified accordingly.
CONCLUSIONS: A modified and improved PROCESS checklist is presented, after a Delphi consensus exercise was completed.

The insights and activities that regularly occur in clinical settings are an underutilized wellspring of potential scientific advances. Single-case experimental designs (SCEDs) include a collection of methods for testing hypotheses in one individual (or a small number of individuals) at a time that are particularly well suited to clinical settings. Their strengths include their potential for maximizing both internal and external validity by way of tight experimental control over threats to internal validity and flexibility in application and inclusion criteria. Despite these advantages, the eating disorder field has not made use of SCEDs to a similar extent as other research areas, providing an opportunity for expansion. Recent advances in organizing SCED standards have resulted in the publication of two sets of reporting guidelines relevant to eating disorders research. These guidelines are integrated and summarized alongside descriptions of domains for evaluating their methodological rigor. Example research questions of potential interest to the eating disorder field are illustrated with SCEDs, and several issues to consider when using SCEDs in eating disorders research are described. It is recommended that researchers aiming to use SCEDs refer to this paper and the resources cited herein when designing and reporting their work. Finally, it is hoped that individuals with access to clinical samples use this paper as a source of inspiration for testing their unique clinical insights.