OBJECTIVE: Studies investigating the application of Artificial Intelligence (AI) in the field of radiotherapy exhibit substantial variations in terms of quality. The goal of this study was to assess the amount of transparency and bias in scoring articles with a specific focus on AI based segmentation and treatment planning, using modified PROBAST and TRIPOD checklists, in order to provide recommendations for future guideline developers and reviewers.
METHODS: The TRIPOD and PROBAST checklist items were discussed and modified using a Delphi process. After consensus was reached, 2 groups of 3 co-authors scored 2 articles to evaluate usability and further optimize the adapted checklists. Finally, 10 articles were scored by all co-authors. Fleiss\' kappa was calculated to assess the reliability of agreement between observers.
RESULTS: Three of the 37 TRIPOD items and 5 of the 32 PROBAST items were deemed irrelevant. General terminology in the items (e.g., multivariable prediction model, predictors) was modified to align with AI-specific terms. After the first scoring round, further improvements of the items were formulated, e.g., by preventing the use of sub-questions or subjective words and adding clarifications on how to score an item. Using the final consensus list to score the 10 articles, only 2 out of the 61 items resulted in a statistically significant kappa of 0.4 or more demonstrating substantial agreement. For 41 items no statistically significant kappa was obtained indicating that the level of agreement among multiple observers is due to chance alone.
CONCLUSIONS: Our study showed low reliability scores with the adapted TRIPOD and PROBAST checklists. Although such checklists have shown great value during development and reporting, this raises concerns about the applicability of such checklists to objectively score scientific articles for AI applications. When developing or revising guidelines, it is essential to consider their applicability to score articles without introducing bias.

Emergency Response Driving (ERD) comprises a significant risk to safety in Emergency Medical Services (EMS). Crew Resource Management (CRM) tools play a major role in securing actions in high-risk procedures. The aim of this study was to find consensus on the important factors to consider when applying CRM tools in ERD and patient transport.
ERD experts (n = 50) were recruited for a modified three-round Delphi study. Round 1 was based on previous research. The experts evaluated the items as important, neutral, or not important. The predetermined level of consensus was set at ≥ 80%. Answers given to the open-ended questions were analyzed using inductive content analysis.
Predetermined consensus was reached on 64 of 86 presented items (74.4 %). The mean values of items reaching consensus varied between 3.81 and 4.86 on a five-point Likert scale. The items where consensus was reached were rated as \"important\" on a trichotomized scale.
Multiple important factors to consider when applying CRM tools to ERD and patient transport were highlighted. This study provides valuable information to consider regarding EMS safety improvements. Further scientific research is needed to develop comprehensive recommendations.

Closed circuit rebreathers have been widely adopted by technical divers as tools for reducing gas consumption and extending depth and duration capabilities. Rebreathers are technologically complex with many failure points, and their use appears associated with a higher accident rate than open circuit scuba. Rebreather Forum Four (RF4) was held in Malta in April 2023 attracting approximately 300 attendees and representatives of multiple manufacturers and training agencies. Over two and a half days a series of lectures was given by influential divers, engineers, researchers and educators on topics of contemporary relevance to rebreather diving safety. Each lecture was followed by a discussion session with audience participation. Potential consensus statements were drafted by the authors (SJM and NWP) during the course of the meeting. These were worded to be confluent with some important messages emerging from the presentations and subsequent discussions. The statements were presented one by one in a half-day plenary session of participants, and discussion was invited on each. After discussion and any necessary revision, the participants voted on whether to adopt the statement as a position of the forum. A clear majority was required for acceptance. Twenty-eight statements embracing thematic areas designated \'safety\', \'research\', \'operational issues\', \'education and training\', and \'engineering\' were adopted. Those statements are presented along with contextualising narrative where necessary. The statements may help shape research and teaching initiatives, and research and development strategies over subsequent years.

We investigated recent meta-research studies on adherence to four reporting guidelines to determine the proportion that provided (1) an explanation for how adherence to guideline items was rated and (2) results from all included individual studies. We examined conclusions of each meta-research study to evaluate possible repetitive and similar findings.
A cross-sectional meta-research study. MEDLINE (Ovid) was searched on July 5, 2022 for studies that used any version of the Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials, Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses, Standards for the Reporting of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies, or Strengthening the Reporting of Observational Studies in Epidemiology reporting guidelines or their extensions to evaluate reporting.
Of 148 included meta-research studies published between August 2020 and June 2022, 14 (10%, 95% confidence interval [CI] 6%-15%) provided a fully replicable explanation of how they coded the adherence ratings and 49 (33%, 95% CI 26%-41%) completely reported individual study results. Of 90 studies that classified reporting as adequate or inadequate in the study abstract, six (7%, 95% CI 3%-14%) concluded that reporting was adequate, but none of those six studies provided information on how items were coded or provided item-level results for included studies.
Almost all included meta-research studies found that reporting in health research is suboptimal. However, few of these reported enough information for verification or replication.

UNASSIGNED: Cardiac arrests require fast, well-timed, and well-coordinated interventions delivered by several staff members. We evaluated a cognitive aid that works as an attentional aid to support specifically the timing and coordination of these interventions. We report the results of an experimental, simulation-based evaluation of the tablet-based cognitive aid in performing guideline-conforming cardiopulmonary resuscitation.
UNASSIGNED: In a parallel group design, emergency teams (one qualified emergency physician as team leader and one qualified nurse) were randomly assigned to the cognitive aid application (CA App) group or the no application (No App) group and then participated in a simulated scenario of a cardiac arrest. The primary outcome was a cardiopulmonary resuscitation performance score ranging from zero to two for each team based on the videotaped scenarios in relation to twelve performance variables derived from the European Resuscitation Guidelines. As a secondary outcome, we measured the participants\' subjective workload.
UNASSIGNED: A total of 67 teams participated. The CA App group (n = 32 teams) showed significantly better cardiopulmonary resuscitation performance than the No App group (n = 31 teams; mean difference = 0.23, 95 %CI = 0.08 to 0.38, p = 0.002, d = 0.83). The CA App group team leaders indicated significantly less mental and physical demand and less effort to achieve their performance compared to the No App group team leaders.
UNASSIGNED: Among well-trained in-hospital emergency teams, the cognitive aid could improve cardiopulmonary resuscitation coordination performance and decrease mental workload.

Health guidelines are a key knowledge translation tool produced and used by numerous stakeholders worldwide. Effective participation in guideline development groups or development groups is crucial for guideline success, yet little guidance exists for members of these groups. In this study, we present the Guideline Participant Tool (GPT) to support effective participation in guideline groups, in particular those using the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) approach.
We used a mixed methods and iterative approach to develop a tool to support guideline participation. We used the findings of a published systematic review to develop an initial list of items for considerations for guideline participants. Then, we refined this list through key informant interviews with guideline chairs, sponsors, and participants. Finally, we validated the GPT in three guideline groups with 26 guideline group members.
The initial list of items based on 37 articles from the existing systematic review included 15 themes and 61 items for a draft tool. Ten key informant interviews helped us refine the list to include the following themes: selection of participants, guideline group process, and tool format. 26 respondents completed the validation survey from three guideline groups. Refinement of the tool ultimately generated a GPT with 33 items for participant consideration before, during, and in follow-up to guideline group meetings.
The GPT contains helpful guidance for all guideline participants, particularly those without previous guideline experience. Future research should further explore the need for additional tools to support guideline participants and identify and develop strategies for improving guideline members\' participation in guideline groups. This work will be incorporated into INGUIDE.org guideline training and credentialing efforts by the Guidelines International Network and McMaster University.

Purpose To adapt the 2015 International Federation of Gynecologists and Obstetricians (FIGO), International Confederation of Midwives (ICM), White Ribbon Alliance (WRA), International Pediatric Association (IPA), and WHO auspiced Guidelines on Mother-Baby Friendly Facilities to a particular sub-population; seminomadic pastoralist communities of Laikipia and Samburu Counties, Kenya. We anticipate an increased utilization of childbirth services by improving their acceptability. Description We drafted a Pastoralist Friendly Birthing Facility Checklist based on the FIGO/ICM/WRA/IPA/WHO guidelines and previous research in this context. We employed mixed methods to finalise the adaptation: a workshop with 27 local stakeholders; interviews with ten health planners and skilled birth attendants (SBAs); and ten focus group discussions (FGDs) with health committee members, community health workers, mothers and traditional birth attendants (TBAs). A facility audit of dispensaries across five group ranches was also undertaken. Assessment The final Checklist was divided into: characteristics of care and the environment; care during labour and birth; post-partum care; and community staff relationships. It was endorsed by the Ministries of Health in the relevant counties, and by women, SBAs and TBAs. No facility currently satisfies all the criteria specified in the Checklist. Conclusion The FIGO/ICM/WRA/IPA/WHO Guidelines were successfully adapted and can be used to ensure health facilities meet the needs of pastoralist women.

This Explanation and Elaboration (E&E) article expands on the 26 items in the Standards for UNiversal reporting of Decision Aid Evaluations guidelines. The E&E provides a rationale for each item and includes examples for how each item has been reported in published papers evaluating patient decision aids. The E&E focuses on items key to reporting studies evaluating patient decision aids and is intended to be illustrative rather than restrictive. Authors and reviewers may wish to use the E&E broadly to inform structuring of patient decision aid evaluation reports, or use it as a reference to obtain details about how to report individual checklist items.

OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to determine relevant items for reporting clinical trials on implantable medical devices (IMDs) and to identify reporting guidelines which include these items.
METHODS: A panel of experts identified the most relevant items for evaluating IMDs from an initial list based on reference papers. We then conducted a systematic review of articles indexed in MEDLINE. We retrieved reporting guidelines from the EQUATOR network\'s library for health research reporting. Finally, we screened these reporting guidelines to find those using our set of reporting items.
RESULTS: Seven relevant reporting items were selected that related to four topics: randomization, learning curve, surgical setting, and device information. A total of 348 reporting guidelines were identified, among which 26 met our inclusion criteria. However, none of the 26 reporting guidelines presented all seven items together. The most frequently reported item was timing of randomization (65%). On the contrary, device information and learning curve effects were poorly specified.
CONCLUSIONS: To our knowledge, this study is the first to identify specific items related to IMDs in reporting guidelines for clinical trials. We have shown that no existing reporting guideline is totally suitable for these devices.

暂无摘要。