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.

UNASSIGNED: Recent research has shown beneficial results for music-based interventions (MBIs) for persons living with Alzheimer\'s disease and related dementias (AD/ADRD), but reports often lack sufficient detail about the MBI methodology, which reduces replicability. A detailed checklist for best practices in how to report MBIs was created in 2011 by Robb and colleagues to remedy the lack of detail in MBI descriptions. The implementation of the checklist specifically in AD/ADRD research has not been established. Given the complexity of music and the variety of uses for research and health, specific MBI descriptions are necessary for rigorous replication and validation of study results.
UNASSIGNED: This systematic mapping review utilized the \"Checklist for Reporting Music-Based Interventions\" to evaluate the current state of MBI descriptive specificity in AD/ADRD research.
UNASSIGNED: Research articles testing MBIs and reviews of MBI efficacy published between January 2015 and August 2023 were scored using the checklist and the results were summarized.
UNASSIGNED: Forty-eight studies were screened, and reporting was inconsistent across the 11 checklist criteria. Ten out of 48 studies fully reported more than 5 of the 11 criteria. Only one of the 11 scoring criteria was at least partially reported across 47 of 48 studies.
UNASSIGNED: Thorough reporting of intervention detail for MBIs remains limited in AD/ADRD MBI research. This impedes study validation, replication, and slows the progress of research and potential application of music in practice. Greater implementation of the reporting guidelines provided by Robb and colleagues would move the field of MBI research for AD/ADRD forward more quickly and efficiently.

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.

OBJECTIVE: In the context of ophthalmologic practice, there has been a rapid increase in the amount of data collected using electronic health records (EHR). Artificial intelligence (AI) offers a promising means of centralizing data collection and analysis, but to date, most AI algorithms have only been applied to analyzing image data in ophthalmologic practice. In this review we aimed to characterize the use of AI in the analysis of EHR, and to critically appraise the adherence of each included study to the CONSORT-AI reporting guideline.
METHODS: A comprehensive search of three relevant databases (MEDLINE, EMBASE, and Cochrane Library) from January 2010 to February 2023 was conducted. The included studies were evaluated for reporting quality based on the AI-specific items from the CONSORT-AI reporting guideline.
RESULTS: Of the 4,968 articles identified by our search, 89 studies met all inclusion criteria and were included in this review. Most of the studies utilized AI for ocular disease prediction (n = 41, 46.1%), and diabetic retinopathy was the most studied ocular pathology (n = 19, 21.3%). The overall mean CONSORT-AI score across the 14 measured items was 12.1 (range 8-14, median 12). Categories with the lowest adherence rates were: describing handling of poor quality data (48.3%), specifying participant inclusion and exclusion criteria (56.2%), and detailing access to the AI intervention or its code, including any restrictions (62.9%).
CONCLUSIONS: In conclusion, we have identified that AI is prominently being used for disease prediction in ophthalmology clinics, however these algorithms are limited by their lack of generalizability and cross-center reproducibility. A standardized framework for AI reporting should be developed, to improve AI applications in the management of ocular disease and ophthalmology decision making.

OBJECTIVE: To determine the extent to which nephrology journals recommend and require reporting guideline adherence and clinical trial registration.
BACKGROUND: Despite a rising disease burden, research published on chronic kidney disease (CKD) and the field of nephrology has failed to keep pace and is limited. To improve the quality of research in the field of nephrology, reporting guidelines have been developed to minimize such deficits in research quality. However, the extent to which nephrology journals require and use reporting guidelines in addition to clinical trial registration is unknown.
METHODS: Sixty-two Nephrology journals were selected through the 2021 Scopus CiteScore tool. Each journal\'s Instructions for Authors was assessed to determine endorsement of study design-specific reporting guidelines or clinical trial registration. Researchers used R (version 4.2.1) and RStudio to create data summaries of descriptive statistics for nephrology journal reporting guidelines.
RESULTS: Clinical trial registration was required by 52% (32/62) of nephrology journals within our sample. The reporting guideline for clinical trials, CONSORT, was required by 17.74% (11/62) of journals. The EQUATOR Network was mentioned by 46.77% (29/62) of journals, while 9.67% (6/62) failed to mention the ICMJE. The reporting guideline for systematic review, PRISMA, was only required by 12.90% (8/62) of journals. When contacting journal editors, 9.67% (6/62) responded and 4.83% (3/62) provided clarifying information.
CONCLUSIONS: Reporting guidelines and clinical trial registration are suboptimally required and recommended by nephrology journals. Their adoption may decrease bias and increase research quality. Thus, nephrology journals should consider a more complete endorsement of these safeguards.

BACKGROUND: Despite the improvements in the completeness of reporting of randomized trial protocols after the publication of the Standard Protocol Items: Recommendations for Interventional Trial (SPIRIT) guidelines, many items remain poorly reported. This study aimed to assess the effectiveness of using SPIRIT-tailored templates for trial protocols to improve the completeness of reporting of the protocols that master\'s students write as part of their master\'s theses.
METHODS: Before and after experimental study performed at the University Master\'s Degree in Orthopaedic Manual Physiotherapy of the Universitat Internacional de Catalunya (Barcelona, Spain). While students in the post-intervention period were instructed to use a trial protocol template that was tailored to SPIRIT, students in the pre-intervention period did not use the template.
METHODS: Difference between the pre- and post-intervention periods in the mean number of adequately reported items (0-10 scale). The outcomes were evaluated independently and in duplicate by two blinded assessors. Students and their supervisors were not aware that they were part of a research project. For the statistical analysis, we used a generalized linear regression model (dependent variable: number of adequately reported items in the protocol; independent variables: intervention period, call, language).
RESULTS: Thirty-four trial protocols were included (17, pre-intervention; 17, post-intervention). Protocols produced during the post-intervention period (mean: 8.24; SD: 1.52) were more completely reported than those produced during the pre-intervention period (mean: 6.35; SD: 1.80); adjusted difference: 1.79 (95% CI: 0.58 to 3.00).
CONCLUSIONS: SPIRIT-based templates could be used to improve the completeness of reporting of randomized trial protocols.

BACKGROUND: Family medicine, vital for patient care but underfunded, prompts an evaluation of how family medicine journals endorse, require, and advocate for reporting guidelines (RGs), clinical trial, and systematic review registration.
OBJECTIVE: Assess endorsement and requirement of RGs, and the stance on clinical trial and systematic review registration in family medicine journals, impacting research quality and transparency.
METHODS: A cross-sectional analysis of 43 \"Family Practice\" journals, identified through the 2021 Scopus CiteScore. Editors-in-Chief were contacted to confirm article types. Data extracted from \"instructions to authors\" pages focused on RG recommendations, requirements, and trial registration.
METHODS: To ensure confidentiality and prevent bias, authors independently extracted data on RG utilisation, adherence, and clinical trial registration provide a overview of research standards.
RESULTS: Of 43 journals, the most recommended guidelines were CONSORT (69%), PRISMA (58%), and STROBE (60%). The most required were PRISMA (16%) and CONSORT (11%). Clinical trial registration was recommended or required by 67% of journals. Additionally, 40 out of the 43 (93%) journals cited at least one reporting guideline in their instructions to authors.
CONCLUSIONS: Family medicine journals exhibit varied endorsement and requirement patterns for RGs and clinical trial registration. While guidelines like CONSORT, PRISMA, and STROBE are acknowledged, caution is needed in presuming a direct link to enhanced research quality. A nuanced approach, promoting diverse reporting guidelines and rigorous study registration, is essential for elevating transparency and advancing research standards in family medicine.

OBJECTIVE: There is a need to consolidate reporting guidance for nutrition randomised controlled trial (RCT) protocols. The reporting completeness in nutrition RCT protocols and study characteristics associated with adherence to SPIRIT and TIDieR reporting guidelines are unknown. We, therefore, assessed reporting completeness and its potential predictors in a random sample of published nutrition and diet-related RCT protocols.
METHODS: We conducted a meta-research study of 200 nutrition and diet-related RCT protocols published in 2019 and 2021 (aiming to consider periods before and after the start of the COVID pandemic). Data extraction included bibliometric information, general study characteristics, compliance with 122 questions corresponding to items and subitems in the SPIRIT and TIDieR checklists combined, and mention to these reporting guidelines in the publications. We calculated the proportion of protocols reporting each item and the frequency of items reported for each protocol. We investigated associations between selected publication aspects and reporting completeness using linear regression analysis.
RESULTS: The majority of protocols included adults and elderly as their study population (n = 73; 36.5%), supplementation as intervention (n = 96; 48.0%), placebo as comparator (n = 89; 44.5%), and evaluated clinical status as the outcome (n = 80; 40.0%). Most protocols described a parallel RCT (n = 188; 94.0%) with a superiority framework (n = 141; 70.5%). Overall reporting completeness was 52.0% (SD = 10.8%). Adherence to SPIRIT items ranged from 0% (n = 0) (data collection methods) to 98.5% (n = 197) (eligibility criteria). Adherence to TIDieR items ranged from 5.5% (n = 11) (materials used in the intervention) to 98.5% (n = 197) (description of the intervention). The multivariable regression analysis suggests that a higher number of authors [β = 0.53 (95%CI: 0.28-0.78)], most recent published protocols [β = 3.19 (95%CI: 0.24-6.14)], request of reporting guideline checklist during the submission process by the journal [β = 6.50 (95%CI: 2.56-10.43)] and mention of SPIRIT by the authors [β = 5.15 (95%CI: 2.44-7.86)] are related to higher reporting completeness scores.
CONCLUSIONS: Reporting completeness in a random sample of 200 diet or nutrition-related RCT protocols was low. Number of authors, year of publication, self-reported adherence to SPIRIT, and journals\' endorsement of reporting guidelines seem to be positively associated with reporting completeness in nutrition and diet-related RCT protocols.

The number of papers presenting machine learning (ML) models that are being submitted to and published in the Journal of Medical Internet Research and other JMIR Publications journals has steadily increased. Editors and peer reviewers involved in the review process for such manuscripts often go through multiple review cycles to enhance the quality and completeness of reporting. The use of reporting guidelines or checklists can help ensure consistency in the quality of submitted (and published) scientific manuscripts and, for example, avoid instances of missing information. In this Editorial, the editors of JMIR Publications journals discuss the general JMIR Publications policy regarding authors\' application of reporting guidelines and specifically focus on the reporting of ML studies in JMIR Publications journals, using the Consolidated Reporting of Machine Learning Studies (CREMLS) guidelines, with an example of how authors and other journals could use the CREMLS checklist to ensure transparency and rigor in reporting.

The widespread application of mesenchymal stem cells (MSCs) in veterinary regenerative medicine highlights their promising therapeutic potential. However, the lack of standardized characterization and reporting practices across studies poses a significant challenge, compromising the assessment of their safety and efficacy. While criteria established for human MSCs serve as a foundation, the unique characteristics of animal-derived MSCs warrant updated guidelines tailored to veterinary medicine. A recent position statement outlining minimal reporting criteria for MSCs in veterinary research reflects efforts to address this need, aiming to enhance research quality and reproducibility. Standardized reporting criteria ensure transparency, facilitate evidence synthesis, and promote best practices adoption in MSC isolation, characterization, and administration. Adherence to minimal reporting criteria is crucial for maintaining scientific rigor and advancing the field of veterinary regenerative medicine. Ongoing collaboration among stakeholders is essential for effective implementation and adherence to updated guidelines, fostering excellence and innovation in MSC-based therapies for animal patients.