This meta-research 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 (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 osteoarthritis. The adherence to the TRIPOD statement was found to be generally low (median adherence of 59%). This inadequate reporting may negatively impact the effective use of the models in clinical practice.

Background/Objectives: Inflammatory bowel diseases (IBDs) are chronic disorders that require close monitoring with imaging techniques such as magnetic resonance enterography (MRE). Standardization of radiological reports is crucial for the optimal management of IBD. We surveyed Italian radiologists regarding their experiences with MRE examinations and reporting for IBD. Methods: All members of the Italian Society of Medical and Interventional Radiology (SIRM) were invited to complete an anonymous questionnaire in April 2023. Comparison tests between variables were assessed using the χ2 test or Fisher exact test according to the least frequency group. Significance level was set for p-value < 0.05. Results: A total of 253 radiologists responded to the survey. Around 70% of the respondents declared personal clinical experience with IBD. Great agreement with the items included and described for both disease activity (i.e., intestinal wall thickness, presence of mucosal ulcers, presence of edema, mucous enhancement) and complications was reported. One-third of the respondents regularly used a structured MRE report. Centers with a high number of IBD patients per year (>1000) mostly used 3 T scanners or both 1.5 T and 3 T scanners (p < 0.001). The incorporation of scores of disease activity was associated with university and high-volume hospitals (p < 0.001). Conclusions: This survey highlighted the current routine practice and experience of MRE reports of IBD patients among Italian radiologists. We found deficiencies in the use of radiological scores in MRE reports and attendance at IBD multidisciplinary meetings.

BACKGROUND: Suicide is a leading cause of death worldwide. Journalistic reporting guidelines were created to curb the impact of unsafe reporting; however, how suicide is framed in news reports may differ by important characteristics such as the circumstances and the decedent\'s gender.
OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to examine the degree to which news media reports of suicides are framed using stigmatized or glorified language and differences in such framing by gender and circumstance of suicide.
METHODS: We analyzed 200 news articles regarding suicides and applied the validated Stigma of Suicide Scale to identify stigmatized and glorified language. We assessed linguistic similarity with 2 widely used metrics, cosine similarity and mutual information scores, using a machine learning-based large language model.
RESULTS: News reports of male suicides were framed more similarly to stigmatizing (P<.001) and glorifying (P=.005) language than reports of female suicides. Considering the circumstances of suicide, mutual information scores indicated that differences in the use of stigmatizing or glorifying language by gender were most pronounced for articles attributing legal (0.155), relationship (0.268), or mental health problems (0.251) as the cause.
CONCLUSIONS: Linguistic differences, by gender, in stigmatizing or glorifying language when reporting suicide may exacerbate suicide disparities.

UNASSIGNED: Evaluate methodological quality of type 2 diabetes RCTs conducted in Iran and cited in clinical practice guidelines and systematic reviews and meta-analyses.
UNASSIGNED: We conducted a descriptive methodological quality review, analyzing 286 Randomized Controlled Trials (RCTs) on diabetes mellitus published in Iran from July 2004 to 2021. We searched six databases systematically and evaluated eligible articles using the CONSORT 2010 checklist for abstracts. Two investigators assessed the data using a 17-item checklist derived from CONSORT. Additionally, we examined the citations of each RCT in 260 clinical practice guidelines, with a specific focus on the adequate reporting of outcomes.
UNASSIGNED: Out of 6667 articles, 286 analyzed. Poor reporting and failure to meet criteria observed. Only 3.8% cited in guidelines. Reporting rates: primary outcomes (41.9%), randomization (61.8%), trial recruitment (12.6%), blinding (50.8%). 27.9% cited in systematic reviews, 50.34% in systematic reviews and meta-analyses, 26.57% in meta-analyses. 67.8% of papers cited in systematic reviews. Adherence highest for participants, objective, randomization, intervention, outcome; lowest for recruitment, trial design, funding source, harms, and reporting primary outcomes.
UNASSIGNED: Poor methodological reporting and adherence to CONSORT checklist in evaluated RCTs, especially in methodological sections. Improvements needed for reliable and applicable results in guidelines, reviews, and meta-analyses. Inadequate outcome reporting challenges researchers, clinicians, and policymakers, impacting evidence-based decision-making. Urgent improvements in RCT registration necessary.

Hidradenitis suppurativa (HS) is a complex inflammatory skin condition affecting 0.1-4% of the population that leads to permanent scarring in the axilla, inframammary region, groin, and buttocks. Its complex pathogenesis involves genetics, innate and adaptive immunity, microbiota, and environmental stimuli. Specific populations have a higher incidence of HS, including females and Black individuals and those with associated comorbidities. HS registries and biobanks have set standards for the documentation of clinical data in the context of clinical trials and outcomes research, but collection, documentation, and reporting of these important clinical and demographic variables are uncommon in HS laboratory research studies. Standardization in the laboratory setting is needed because it helps to elucidate the factors that contribute mechanistically to HS symptoms and pathophysiology. The purpose of this article is to begin to set the stage for standardized reporting in the laboratory setting. We discuss how clinical guidelines can inform laboratory research studies, and we highlight what additional information is necessary for the use of samples in the wet laboratory and interpretation of associated mechanistic data. Through standardized data collection and reporting, data harmonization between research studies will transform our understanding of HS and lead to novel discoveries that will positively impact patient care.

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.

As clinical trials in oncology require substantial efforts, maximizing the insights gained from them by conducting subgroup analyses is often attempted. The goal of these analyses is to identify subgroups of patients who are likely to benefit, as well as the subgroups of patients who are unlikely to benefit from the studied intervention. International guidelines occasionally include or exclude novel medications and technologies for specific subpopulations based on such analyses of pivotal trials without requiring confirmatory trials. This Perspective discusses the importance of providing a complete dataset of clinical information when reporting subgroup analyses and explains why such transparency is key for better clinical interpretation of the results and the appropriate application to clinical care, by providing examples of transparent reporting of clinical studies and examples of incomplete reporting of clinical studies.

Tumor mutational burden (TMB) has been recognized as a predictive biomarker for immunotherapy response in several tumor types. Several laboratories offer TMB testing, but there is significant variation in how TMB is calculated, reported, and interpreted among laboratories. TMB standardization efforts are underway, but no published guidance for TMB validation and reporting is currently available. Recognizing the current challenges of clinical TMB testing, the Association for Molecular Pathology convened a multidisciplinary collaborative working group with representation from the American Society of Clinical Oncology, the College of American Pathologists, and the Society for the Immunotherapy of Cancer to review the laboratory practices surrounding TMB and develop recommendations for the analytical validation and reporting of TMB testing based on survey data, literature review, and expert consensus. These recommendations encompass pre-analytical, analytical, and postanalytical factors of TMB analysis, and they emphasize the relevance of comprehensive methodological descriptions to allow comparability between assays.

This document has been developed to provide a guide for basic and advanced reporting in pediatric echocardiography. Furthermore, it aims to help clinicians in the interpretation of echocardiographic measurements and functional data for estimating the severity of disease in different pediatric age groups. The following topics will be reviewed and discussed in the present document: i) the general principle in constructing a pediatric echocardiography report, ii) the basic elements to be included, iii) the potential and limitation of currently employed tools used for disease severity quantification during paediatric reporting. A guide for the interpretation of Z-scores will be provided. Use and interpretation of parameters employed for quantification of ventricular systolic function will be discussed. Difficulties in the adoption of adult parameters for the study of diastolic function and valve defects at different ages, pressure and loading conditions will be outlined, with pitfalls for the assessment listed. A guide for careful use of prediction scores for complex congenital heart disease will be provided. Examples of basic and advanced (disease specific) formats for reporting in paediatric echocardiography will be provided. This document should serve as a comprehensive guide to i) structure a comprehensive paediatric echocardiographic report, ii) identify the basic morphological details, measures, and functional parameters to be included during echocardiographic reporting, and iii) correctly interpret measurements and functional data for estimating disease severity.

Background: While the PRISMA 2020 statement is intended to guide the reporting of original systematic reviews, updated systematic reviews, and living systematic reviews (LSRs), its explanation and elaboration document notes that additional considerations for updated systematic reviews and LSRs may need to be addressed. This paper reports the protocol for developing an extension of the PRISMA 2020 statement for LSRs. Methods: We will follow the EQUATOR Network\'s guidance for developing health research reporting guidelines. We will review the literature to identify possible items of the PRISMA 2020 checklist that need modification, as well as new items that need to be added. Then, we will survey representatives of different stakeholder groups for their views on the proposed modifications of the PRISMA 2020 checklist. We will summarize, present, and discuss the results of the survey in an online meeting, aiming to reach consensus on the content of the LSR extension. We will then draft the checklist, explanation and elaboration for each item, and flow diagram for the PRISMA 2020 extension. Then, we will share these initial documents with stakeholder representatives for final feedback and approval. Discussion: We anticipate that the PRISMA 2020 extension for LSRs will benefit LSR authors, editors, and peer reviewers of LSRs, as well as different users of LSRs, including guideline developers, policy makers, healthcare providers, patients, and other stakeholders.