Consensus methods are crucial in developing clinical guidelines. Different methods, such as the Delphi and nominal group techniques, are commonly used, but there is a lack of detailed instructions on how to implement them effectively. The survey aims to explore the opinions and attitudes of the chair, panel and working group on the critical elements of the consensus methods during guideline development.
We used a cross-sectional design to conduct this study and sent a structured questionnaire to stakeholders, including the chair, panel members, and working group participants, through the popular mobile phone application WeChat.We selected participants using a combination of purposive and snowball sampling. The questionnaire gathered information on demographics, experiences, opinions, and concerns regarding consensus methods and guideline development.
The sample comprised 290 participants representing 31 provinces or municipalities. Among them, the most significant number of respondents (n = 107, 36.9%) were from Beijing. Most participants, specifically 211 (72.76%), held senior professional titles, while 186 (64.14%) adhered to ongoing guidelines. The Delphi method was the most commonly used consensus method (n = 132, 42.31%), but the respondents had only a preliminary understanding of it (n = 147, 47.12%). The consensus process also revealed the insufficiency of involving pharmacoeconomists, patients, and nurses.
Consensus methods have to be standardised and used consistently in the guideline development process. The findings of this study offer insights into diverse roles and more effective ways to apply the consensus process during guideline development.

This Perspective Essay draws from an experience of deception in virtual fieldwork and considers implications for those designing methodologies for virtual ethnographies. As qualitative field work increasingly takes place within virtual spaces and through virtual means, researchers are faced with critical dilemmas in the processes of data gathering and verification. One of these dilemmas concerns ensuring data validity and facticity if encountered with research subjects who are deceptive about their identity, experiences, or relationship to the field of research. This Perspective Essay offers specific guidelines concerning articulating the nature and possibilities of deception in virtual spaces, identifying deceptive data, and what to do with deceptive data in order to maintain data validity and transparency.

When it comes to questions of fact in a legal context-particularly questions about measurement, association, and causality-courts should employ ordinary standards of applied science. Applied sciences generally develop along a path that proceeds from a basic scientific discovery about some natural process to the formation of a theory of how the process works and what causes it to fail, to the development of an invention intended to assess, repair, or improve the process, to the specification of predictions of the instrument\'s actions and, finally, empirical validation to determine that the instrument achieves the intended effect. These elements are salient and deeply embedded in the cultures of the applied sciences of medicine and engineering, both of which primarily grew from basic sciences. However, the inventions that underlie most forensic science disciplines have few roots in basic science, and they do not have sound theories to justify their predicted actions or results of empirical tests to prove that they work as advertised. Inspired by the \"Bradford Hill Guidelines\"-the dominant framework for causal inference in epidemiology-we set forth four guidelines that can be used to establish the validity of forensic comparison methods generally. This framework is not intended as a checklist establishing a threshold of minimum validity, as no magic formula determines when particular disciplines or hypotheses have passed a necessary threshold. We illustrate how these guidelines can be applied by considering the discipline of firearm and tool mark examination.

暂无摘要。

Most of the reviews carried out in sports science have used the general items suggested by Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analysis (PRISMA). Due to the specific requirements of each knowledge area, several modifications of the PRISMA are necessary to optimize the process of the systematic reviews and, in consequence, the quality of the conclusions provided in this type of study. Therefore, this work aimed to adapt PRISMA to provide specific guidelines to carry out systematic reviews in sports science. The methodology criteria (search strategy, databases, and eligibility) and the results section (flow diagrams and study contents) were adapted based on previous studies, and several new considerations were added to design the new guidelines. We compiled 28 items suggested by sports science researchers and included two new items: (i) population/problem (i.e., age, level, and country) and (ii) the entire training process, which is monitored and compared between groups (e.g., total training load). To maximize the benefit of this document, we encourage people to read it in conjunction with the PRISMA statement. The main differences between PRISMA and the PRISMA adapted to sports science were related to registration, search strategy, flow diagrams, and results. Application of the new guidelines could improve the information provided to readers and make it easier to generalize and compare the results in sports science.

OBJECTIVE: Systematic reviews and meta-analyses (SRs/MAs) are designed to be rigorous research methodologies that synthesize information and inform practice. An increase in their publication runs parallel to quality concerns and a movement toward standards to improve reporting and methodology. With the goal of informing the guidance librarians provide to SR/MA teams, this study assesses online journal author guidelines from an institutional sample to determine whether these author guidelines address SR/MA methodological quality.
METHODS: A Web of Science Core Collection (Clarivate) search identified SRs/MAs published in 2014-2019 by authors affiliated with a single institution. The AMSTAR 2 checklist was used to develop an assessment tool of closed questions specific to measures for SR/MA methodological quality in author guidelines, with questions added about author guidelines in general. Multiple reviewers completed the assessment.
RESULTS: The author guidelines of 141 journals were evaluated. Less than 20% addressed at least one of the assessed measures specific to SR/MA methodological quality. There was wide variation in author guidelines between journals from the same publisher apart from the American Medical Association, which consistently offered in-depth author guidelines. Normalized Eigenfactor and Article Influence Scores did not indicate author guideline breadth.
CONCLUSIONS: Most author guidelines in the institutional sample did not address SR/MA methodological quality. When consulting with teams embarking on SRs/MAs, librarians should not expect author guidelines to provide details about the requirements of the target journals. Librarians should advise teams to follow established SR/MA standards, contact journal staff, and review SRs/MAs previously published in the journal.

There has been a burgeoning of research evaluating acupuncture for various symptoms of cancer and the side-effects associated with its treatment. A systematic review was conducted to examine the quality of reporting in published studies of acupuncture in cancer according to the STRICTA (STandards for Reporting Interventions in Clinical Trials of Acupuncture) guidelines.
Systematic review of published research of acupuncture for symptoms of cancer and the side-effects associated with its treatment. Databases searched were: Medline, CINAHL, Cochrane (all databases), Scopus, and PubMed from their inception to December 2014. Clinical trials, pilot/feasibility studies, observational studies, and case studies were included. Only full journal papers published in English were included. The quality of reporting was evaluated using STRICTA guidelines. Each included paper was assessed by two independent reviewers, with disagreements adjudicated by a third reviewer.
88 papers were identified which met the inclusion criteria. The median number of STRICTA items reported in trials with a control or comparator arm (n=47) was 14 out of 17 (range 8 to 17, IQR 4). For studies without a control or comparator arm the median was 11 out of a possible 15 (range 5 to 15, IQR 3). Key weaknesses in reporting included details of other components of treatments, and details of the acupuncturist administering treatments.
Despite the widespread use of the STRICTA guidelines in acupuncture research, adherence remains poor for a few specific items. Further research is required to explore the reasons why authors fail to report those items, and to develop strategies to improve the adherence to the guidelines.

The fragility index (FI) is calculated by iteratively changing one outcome \"event\" to a \"non-event\" within a trial until the associated p-value exceeds 0.05.
To investigate the FI and fragility quotient (FQ) of trial endpoints referenced in the ACCF/AHA/SCAI guidelines in the management of ST-elevation myocardial infarctions. Secondarily, we assess the post-hoc power and risk of bias for these specific outcomes and whether differences exist between adequately and inadequately powered studies on fragility measures.
All citations referenced in the guideline were screened for inclusion criteria. The FI and FQ for all included trials were then calculated. The Cochrane \'risk of bias\' Tool 2.0 was used to evaluate the likelihood and sources of bias in the included trials.
Forty-two randomized controlled trials were included for assessment. The median FI was 10 with a FQ of 0.0055. Seven trials were at a high risk of bias, all due to bias in the randomization process. Fifteen trials were found to be underpowered. Adequately powered studies had higher FIs and FQs compared to underpowered studies.
Our findings support the use of FI and FQ analyses with power analyses in future methodology of randomized control trials. With understanding and reporting of FI and FQ, evidence of studies can be readily available and quickly eliminate some readers\' concern for possible study limitations.

Guidelines for clinical trials of acupuncture are scarce, particularly in their guidance on choosing an adequate control in an acupuncture trial. This guideline was developed to address the research methodology for clinical research in acupuncture which contains the essential elements to be considered in the design, preparation and reporting of an acupuncture RCT. Particularly, investigators focused on the control design because of the unique feature of acupuncture. As one size does not fit all, one single design cannot answer all research questions. Therefore, we recommend that the clinical questions be answered in different stages of trials by choosing the appropriate control or comparator. This concept is adapted from classical drug trials developed by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) of USA in which trials are staged in four phages in order to address different research questions. From the points listed above, this guideline offers the specific recommendations in an acupuncture RCT.

Systematic reviews (SRs) of clinical practice guidelines (CPGs) are unique knowledge syntheses that require tailored approaches to, and greater subjectivity in, design and execution compared with other SRs in clinical epidemiology. We provide review authors structured direction on how to design and conduct methodologically rigorous SRs of CPGs.
A guidance paper outlining suggested methodology for conducting all stages of an SR of CPGs. We present concrete examples of approaches used by published reviews, including a case exemplar demonstrating how this methodology was applied to our own SR of CPGs.
Review context and the unique characteristics of CPGs as research syntheses or clinical guidance statements must be considered in all aspects of review design and conduct. Researchers should develop a \"PICAR\" statement to help form and focus on the research question(s) and eligibility criteria, assess CPG quality using a validated appraisal tool, and extract, analyze, and summarize data in a way that is cogent and transparent.
SRs of CPGs can be used to systematically identify, assess, and summarize the current state of guidance on a clinical topic. These types of reviews often require methodological tailoring to ensure that their objectives and timelines are effectively and efficiently addressed; however, they should all meet the criteria for an SR, follow a rigorous methodological approach, and adhere to transparent reporting practices.