Reporting standards are essential to health research as they improve accuracy and transparency. Over time, significant changes have occurred to the requirements for reporting research to ensure comprehensive and transparent reporting across a range of study domains and foster methodological rigor. The establishment of the Declaration of Helsinki, Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials (CONSORT), Strengthening the Reporting of Observational Studies in Epidemiology (STROBE), and Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analysis (PRISMA) are just a few of the historic initiatives that have increased research transparency. Through enhanced discoverability, statistical analysis facilitation, article quality enhancement, and language barrier reduction, artificial intelligence (AI)-in particular, large language models like ChatGPT-has transformed academic writing. However, problems with errors that could occur and the need for transparency while utilizing AI tools still exist. Modifying reporting rules to include AI-driven writing tools such as ChatGPT is ethically and practically challenging. In academic writing, precautions for truth, privacy, and responsibility are necessary due to concerns about biases, openness, data limits, and potential legal ramifications. The CONSORT-AI and Standard Protocol Items: Recommendations for Interventional Trials (SPIRIT)-AI Steering Group expands the CONSORT guidelines for AI clinical trials-new checklists like METRICS and CLEAR help to promote transparency in AI studies. Responsible usage of technology in research and writing software adoption requires interdisciplinary collaboration and ethical assessment. This study explores the impact of AI technologies, specifically ChatGPT, on past reporting standards and the need for revised guidelines for open, reproducible, and robust scientific publications.

BACKGROUND: Diagnosis can often be recorded in electronic medical records (EMRs) as free-text or using a term with a diagnosis code. Researchers, governments, and agencies, including organisations that deliver incentivised primary care quality improvement programs, frequently utilise coded data only and often ignore free-text entries. Diagnosis data are reported for population healthcare planning including resource allocation for patient care. This study sought to determine if diagnosis counts based on coded diagnosis data only, led to under-reporting of disease prevalence and if so, to what extent for six common or important chronic diseases.
METHODS: This cross-sectional data quality study used de-identified EMR data from 84 general practices in Victoria, Australia. Data represented 456,125 patients who attended one of the general practices three or more times in two years between January 2021 and December 2022. We reviewed the percentage and proportional difference between patient counts of coded diagnosis entries alone and patient counts of clinically validated free-text entries for asthma, chronic kidney disease, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, dementia, type 1 diabetes and type 2 diabetes.
RESULTS: Undercounts were evident in all six diagnoses when using coded diagnoses alone (2.57-36.72% undercount), of these, five were statistically significant. Overall, 26.4% of all patient diagnoses had not been coded. There was high variation between practices in recording of coded diagnoses, but coding for type 2 diabetes was well captured by most practices.
CONCLUSIONS: In Australia clinical decision support and the reporting of aggregated patient diagnosis data to government that relies on coded diagnoses can lead to significant underreporting of diagnoses compared to counts that also incorporate clinically validated free-text diagnoses. Diagnosis underreporting can impact on population health, healthcare planning, resource allocation, and patient care. We propose the use of phenotypes derived from clinically validated text entries to enhance the accuracy of diagnosis and disease reporting. There are existing technologies and collaborations from which to build trusted mechanisms to provide greater reliability of general practice EMR data used for secondary purposes.

BACKGROUND: Despite the widespread recommendation to engage in therapeutic exercise for the treatment of low back pain (LBP), there is conflicting evidence regarding clinical outcomes and effectiveness. Poor methodological quality may be to blame for reducing the overall strength of evidence for this intervention, yet little is known about the difficulties researchers encounter when designing and implementing their study methods.
OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to characterize the extent and type of self-acknowledged limitations (SALs) in exercise therapy trials for LBP to gain a better understanding of challenges encountered when conducting this research.
METHODS: This is a methodological review of clinical trials in which SALs were extracted, categorized by theme and subcategorized within each theme. Counts and prevalence rates were tabulated for the number of SALs in each category and subcategory.
RESULTS: There were 914 SALs among the 312 included trials, with a mean of 2.93 (95% confidence interval [CI], 2.77-3.09) per trial. Analysis of the data resulted in the development of 13 distinct categories of limitations, among which were 37 subcategories. The top three categories pertained to statistical power (14.3% of total SALs), study length and/or follow-up (14.3%) and inclusion criteria (14.2%). The top three subcategories were lack of long-term follow-up (13.8% of total SALs), inadequate sample size (13.3%) and inclusion of specific populations (12.3%).
CONCLUSIONS: Statistical power, study length and/or follow-up, and inclusion criteria were the three most commonly reported categories of SALs in exercise trials for LBP. Lack of long-term follow-up, inadequate sample size and inclusion of specific populations were the most common subcategories. Research protocols recognizing and avoiding these limitations will enhance the overall quality of evidence of exercise therapy trials for LBP.

BACKGROUND: With targeted inhibition of type 2 inflammation, biologics represent the standard add-on therapy for inadequately controlled severe forms of chronic rhinosinusitis with nasal polyps (CRSwNP). Despite standardization with paper-based checklists, the documentation of medical history and current findings pertinent to indication criteria are a significant challenge for physicians. Through development of an application based on structured reporting, the current study aimed to improve documentation quality and simplify the decision-making process. Previously available paper checklists served as a comparison.
METHODS: For this study, a digital incremental tool was programmed to record current findings and check for fulfilment of indication criteria. The tool was compared with other checklists in terms of completeness, time required, and readability.
RESULTS: A total of 20 findings were collected for each of the three documentation options and included in the analysis. Documentation with the two paper-based checklists had comparable information content: 17.5 ± 5.1/21.7 ± 7.6 points out of a maximum of 43 points; p > 0.05. Documentation using the digital application led to a significant increase in information content compared to all paper-based documentation. The average score was 38.25 ± 3.7 (88.9% of maximum; p < 0.001). On average, user satisfaction was high (9.6/10). Use of the digital application was initially more time consuming, but as more cases were documented, the time taken improved significantly.
CONCLUSIONS: In the future, structured reporting using apps could replace paper-based reporting for the indication of biologic therapy in CRSwNP patients and offer additional benefits in terms of data quality and traceability of results. The increasing volume of documentation in the future, the progress of digitalization, and the possibility of networking between individual centers make introduction of the app in the near future both likely and economical.
UNASSIGNED: HINTERGRUND: Biologika ergänzen durch gezielte, hemmende Mechanismen der Typ-2-Entzündung die Standardtherapie für unzureichend kontrollierte schwere Formen der chronischen Rhinosinusitis mit Nasenpolypen (CRSwNP). Trotz Standardisierung mithilfe papierbasierter Checklisten stellen Dokumentation von Anamnese und notwendigen Befunden zur Erfüllung aktueller Verordnungskriterien eine große Herausforderung für Ärzt:innen dar. Ziel der vorliegenden Studie war es, mithilfe von strukturierter Befunderhebung („structured reporting“, SR) die Qualität jener Dokumentation und den Therapieentscheidungsprozess effizienter zu gestalten. Als Vergleich dienten hierzu die bisher erhältlichen Papier-Checklisten.
METHODS: Für diese Studie wurde ein inkrementelles Tool programmiert, um aktuelle Befunde zu erfassen und die Erfüllung der Indikationskriterien zu überprüfen. Das Tool wurde in puncto Vollständigkeit, Zeitaufwand und Lesbarkeit mit anderen Checklisten verglichen ERGEBNISSE: Für jede der 3 Dokumentationsmöglichkeiten wurden 20 Befunde erhoben und in die Analyse einbezogen. Die Dokumentation auf den papierbasierten Checklisten hatte einen vergleichbaren Informationsgehalt: 17,5 ± 5,1 bzw. 21,7 ± 7,6 von maximal 43 möglichen Punkten; p > 0,05. Die Dokumentation mit der digitalen Anwendung führte zu einem signifikanten Anstieg des Informationsgehalts im Vergleich zu allen papierbasierten Dokumentationen. Die durchschnittliche Punktzahl betrug 38,25 ± 3,7 (88,9 % der Maximalpunktzahl; p < 0,001). Die Nutzerzufriedenheit war im Durchschnitt hoch (9,6/10). Die Nutzung der digitalen Anwendung war anfangs zeitaufwendiger, verringerte sich aber mit zunehmender Anzahl der dokumentierten Fälle erheblich.
UNASSIGNED: Die strukturierte Befundung mittels (Web‑)Apps könnte in Zukunft die papierbasierte Befundung zur Indikation einer Biologikatherapie bei CRSwNP-Patient:innen ersetzen und zusätzliche Vorteile in Bezug auf die Datenqualität und Nachvollziehbarkeit der Ergebnisse bieten. Das zukünftig steigende Dokumentationsvolumen, die fortschreitende Digitalisierung und die Möglichkeit der Vernetzung zwischen einzelnen Zentren machen die Einführung einer App in naher Zukunft wahrscheinlich und wirtschaftlich.

This study provides insight into the current fitness testing practices in elite male soccer. One hundred and two practitioners from professional soccer leagues across 24 countries completed an online survey comprising 29 questions, with five sections: a) background information, b) testing selection, c) testing implementation, d) data analysis, and e) data reporting. Frequency analysis was used to evaluate the responses to fixed response questions and thematic analysis was used for open-ended questions to generate clear and distinct themes. Strength (85%) and aerobic capacity (82%) represent the most frequently assessed physical qualities. Scientific literature (80%) is the most influential factor in testing selection and practitioners conduct fitness testing less frequently than their perceived ideal frequency per season (3.6 ± 2 vs. 4.5 ± 2). Time and competitive schedule were the greatest barriers to fitness testing administration. Practitioners mostly used a \'hybrid\' approach (45%) to fitness testing, blending \'traditional\' (i.e., a day dedicated to testing) and \'integrated\' (i.e., testing within regular training sessions) methods. Microsoft Excel is the most used software for data analysis (95%) and visualization (79%). An equal use of the combination of best and mean scores of multiple trials (44%) and the best score (42%) was reported. Comparing a player\'s test performance with previous scores (89%) was the most common method for interpreting test results. However, only 38% considered measurement error. Digital displays and verbal feedback are the most common data reporting methods, with different data reporting processes for coaches and players. Practitioners can use data and findings from this study to inform their current testing practices and researchers to further identify areas for investigation, with the overarching aim of developing the field of fitness testing in elite male soccer.

UNASSIGNED: This article aims to evaluate the intrareader and interreader agreement of ultrasound (US) gallbladder reporting and data system (GB-RADS) and validate the risk of malignancy in each GB-RADS category.
UNASSIGNED: This retrospective study comprised consecutive patients with nonacute gallbladder wall thickening who underwent US evaluation between January 2019 and December 2022. Three radiologists independently read the static US images and cine-loops for GB-RADS findings and assigned GB-RADS categories. The intraobserver (static images) and interobserver (static images and cine-loops) agreement was calculated using kappa statistics and Krippendorff\'s alpha. Another radiologist assigned a consensus GB-RADS category. The percentage of malignancy in each GB-RADS category was calculated.
UNASSIGNED: Static US images of 414 patients (median age, 56 years; 288 women, benign = 45.6% and malignant = 54.4%) and cine-loops of 50 patients were read. There was weak to moderate intrareader agreement for most GB-RADS findings and moderate intrareader agreement for the GB-RADS category for all readers. On static images, the interreader agreement was acceptable for GB-RADS categories. On cine-loops, the interreader agreement for GB-RADS findings and categories was better than static images. The percentage of malignancy was 1.2%, 37%, 71.1%, and 89.1% in GB-RADS 2, 3, 4, and 5 categories.
UNASSIGNED: GB-RADS has moderate intrareader for GB-RADS categories. As originally proposed, the risk of malignancy is negligible in GB-RADS 2 category and highest in GB-RADS 5 category. However, the discriminatory performance of GB-RADS 3 and 4 categories is low. Larger multicenter studies with more readers must assess the reader agreement and validate the GB-RADS systems for wider clinical utilization.

Patient race/ethnicity data collection in most U.S. health systems abide by federal standards, determined by the federal Office of Management and Budget. Yet, decades of research show that reliance on these categories alone limits understanding of within-group health disparities, systematically erasing key groups from health data. Because granular race/ethnicity data is complex and patients may be hesitant to disclose this personal information, it is important for health leaders to consider community perspectives when making decisions about race/ethnicity data procedures. As such, this study uses community focus groups to understand: (1) how individuals representing different racial/ethnic identities perceive the collection of race/ethnicity in healthcare settings; (2) differences in opinions between disaggregated race/ethnicity data collection instruments and those using federal standards; and (3) recommended practices for collecting race/ethnicity from patients. Participants self-selected into 13 focus groups and one key informant interview based on the race/ethnicity with which they most closely identified. Audio recordings from these groups were transcribed and evaluated using thematic content analysis. Among the 83 total participants in this study, there was a strong preference for more flexible and specific options for self-identifying race/ethnicity in healthcare settings. Participants also felt comfortable disclosing granular race/ethnicity to health providers but expressed discomfort with disclosing this information for other purposes. Recommendations for healthcare leaders include ensuring patients receive detailed communication about race/ethnicity data use and purpose, allowing multiple category selection, keeping the list of disaggregated response options short so as to not overwhelm patients, and providing a free text option to ensure inclusivity.

UNASSIGNED: This retrospective analysis examined serious adverse events (SAEs) and deaths in U.S. lifestyle clinical trials aimed at enhancing cognitive health in older adults.
UNASSIGNED: Data was gathered from trials completed between January 1, 2000, and July 19, 2023, via ClinicalTrials.gov\'s API.
UNASSIGNED: Among these trials, 76% did not report results. The remaining studies fell into four intervention categories: Cognitive/Behavioral, Exercise/Movement, Diet/Supplement, and Multi-modal. When considering all trial types collectively, the findings suggest that lifestyle clinical trials are generally safe. There was no significant increase in the relative risk of experiencing an SAE in the intervention group compared to the control group. However, in terms of relative risk of death, an increase of 28% was observed in the intervention compared to the control, which was statistically significant (X2 (1, N = 36), p < 0.00688). Nevertheless, this increase did not surpass age-adjusted U.S. mortality rates. Assessing the data by intervention type, Diet/Supplement, and Multi-modal trials displayed an elevated relative risk of SAEs in the intervention. Diet/Supplement trials had a 16% increase (X2 (1, N = 2), p < 0.0263), and Multi-modal trials had a 365% increase (X2 (1, N = 5), p < 0.000213). Diet/Supplement trials also showed a 67% increased risk of death (X2 (1, N = 2), p < 0.000197).
UNASSIGNED: These findings should be cautiously considered due to the low rate of reporting, but underscore the significance of reporting clinical trial results, enhancing transparency, and facilitating more accurate safety assessments in cognitive aging and lifestyle interventions for older adults.

The purpose of research is to seek answers and new knowledge. When conducted properly and systematically, research adds to humanity\'s corpus of knowledge and hence to our general advancement. However, this is only possible if reported research is accurate and transparent. Guidelines for all the major types of studies (STROBE, CONSORT, PRISMA, MOOSE, STARD, and SPIRIT) have been developed and refined over the years, and their inception, development, and application are briefly discussed in this paper. Indeed, there are currently over 250 of these guidelines for various types of medical research, and these are published by the EQUATOR network. This paper will also briefly review progress in acceptance and adoption of these guidelines.

For exercise interventions to be effectively reproduced or applied in a \"real world\" clinical setting, clinical trials must thoroughly document all components of the exercise prescription and ensure that participants adhere to each component. However, previous reviews have not critically examined the quality of exercise prescription of inpatient Pulmonary Rehabilitation (PR) programs.
The objectives of this review were to evaluate the (a) application of the principles of exercise training, (b) reporting of the frequency, intensity, time and type (FITT) components of exercise prescription, and (c) reporting of patient\'s adherence to the FITT components in intervention studies for patients admitted to hospital for an acute exacerbation of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (AECOPD).
Relevant scientific databases were searched for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) that compared in-hospital PR with usual care for people hospitalized with AECOPD. Title and abstract followed by full-text screening were conducted independently by two reviewers. Data were extracted and synthesized to evaluate the application of the principles of exercise training and the reporting/adherence of the FITT components.
Twenty-seven RCTs were included. Only two applied all principles of exercise training. Specificity was applied by 70%, progression by 48%, overload by 37%, initial values by 89% and diminishing returns and reversibility by 37% of trials. Ten trials adequately reported all FITT components. Frequency and type were the components most reported (85% and 81%, respectively), while intensity was less frequently reported (52%). Only three trials reported on the patient\'s adherence to all four components.
Studies have not adequately reported the exercise prescription in accordance with the principles of exercise training nor reported all the FITT components of the exercise prescription and patient\'s adherence to them. Therefore, interpretation of the current literature is limited and information for developing exercise prescriptions to individuals hospitalized with an AECOPD is lacking.