OBJECTIVE: A recent applicability study highlighted the need for the existing checklist for reporting research using a simulated patient methodology (CRiSP) to be clearer and user-friendly. The aim of this study was to update the checklist to address these concerns.
METHODS: A fourth round of the Delphi consensus study, used in the original checklist development work, was conducted. Previous participants, who had expertise in SP methodology, were invited to complete a questionnaire including a list of 13 checklist items developed in the previous study and revised following applicability testing. Closed questions were analysed for frequency. Consensus was predefined as >80% agreement. All items were discussed in a roundtable meeting and further modified as necessary. Responses to open questions were content analysed.
RESULTS: Twenty-one authors participated. There was a statistical consensus in 12 out of 13 modified checklist items.
CONCLUSIONS: A final reporting checklist for studies in health research using SP methodology has been developed using a consensus approach. Further refinements may be needed to increase the generalizability of the checklist in different contexts.

UNASSIGNED: Existing reporting guidelines pay insufficient attention to the detail and comprehensiveness reporting of surgical technique. The Surgical techniqUe rePorting chEcklist and standaRds (SUPER) aims to address this gap by defining reporting standards for surgical technique. The SUPER guideline intends to apply to articles that encompass surgical technique in any study design, surgical discipline, and stage of surgical innovation.
UNASSIGNED: Following the EQUATOR (Enhancing the QUAlity and Transparency Of health Research) Network approach, 16 surgeons, journal editors, and methodologists reviewed existing reporting guidelines relating to surgical technique, reviewed papers from 15 top journals, and brainstormed to draft initial items for the SUPER. The initial items were revised through a three-round Delphi survey from 21 multidisciplinary Delphi panel experts from 13 countries and regions. The final SUPER items were formed after an online consensus meeting to resolve disagreements and a three-round wording refinement by all 16 SUPER working group members and five SUPER consultants.
UNASSIGNED: The SUPER reporting guideline includes 22 items that are considered essential for good and informative surgical technique reporting. The items are divided into six sections: background, rationale, and objectives (items 1 to 5); preoperative preparations and requirements (items 6 to 9); surgical technique details (items 10 to 15); postoperative considerations and tasks (items 16 to 19); summary and prospect (items 20 and 21); and other information (item 22).
UNASSIGNED: The SUPER reporting guideline has the potential to guide detailed, comprehensive, and transparent surgical technique reporting for surgeons. It may also assist journal editors, peer reviewers, systematic reviewers, and guideline developers in the evaluation of surgical technique papers and help practitioners to better understand and reproduce surgical technique.
UNASSIGNED: https://www.equator-network.org/library/reporting-guidelines-under-development/reporting-guidelines-under-development-for-other-study-designs/#SUPER.

UNASSIGNED: Surgical technique plays an essential role in achieving good health outcomes. However, the quality of surgical technique reporting remains heterogeneous. Reporting checklists could help authors to describe the surgical technique more transparently and effectively, as well as to assist reviewers and editors evaluate it more informatively, and promote readers to better understand the technique. We previously developed SUPER (surgical technique reporting checklist and standards) to assist authors in reporting their research that contains surgical technique more transparently. However, further explanation and elaboration of each item are needed for better understanding and reporting practice.
UNASSIGNED: We searched surgical literature in PubMed, Google Scholar and journal websites published up to January 2023 to find multidiscipline examples in various article types for each SUPER item.
UNASSIGNED: We explain the 22 items of the SUPER and provide rationales item by item alongside. We provide 69 examples from 53 literature that present optimal reporting of the 22 items. Article types of examples include pure surgical technique, and case reports, observational studies and clinical trials that contain surgical technique. Examples are multidisciplinary, including general surgery, orthopaedical surgery, cardiac surgery, thoracic surgery, gastrointestinal surgery, neurological surgery, oncogenic surgery, and emergency surgery etc.
UNASSIGNED: Along with SUPER article, this explanation and elaboration file can promote deeper understanding on the SUPER items. We hope that the article could further guide surgeons and researchers in reporting, and assist editors and peer reviewers in reviewing manuscripts related to surgical technique.

OBJECTIVE: Massage is a common therapy of nonpharmacological treatments, particularly in Tuina (Chinese massage) as its most common style, detailed guidance in reporting the intervention is warranted for its evaluation and replication. Based on the CONSORT (Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials), we aimed to develop an Extension for Tuina/Massage, namely \"The STandards for Reporting Interventions in Clinical Trials Of Tuina/Massage (STRICTOTM).\"
METHODS: A group of professional clinicians, trialists, methodologists, developers of reporting guidelines, epidemiologists, statisticians, and editors has developed this STRICTOTM checklist through a standard methodology process recommended by the EQUATOR (Enhancing the QUAlity and Transparency of Health Research) Network, including prospective registration, literature review, draft of the initial items, three rounds of the Delphi survey, consensus meeting, pilot test, and finalization of the guideline.
RESULTS: A checklist of seven items (namely Tuina/Massage rationale, details of Tuina/Massage, intervention regimen, other components of the intervention, Tuina/Massage provider background, control or comparator interventions, and precaution measures), and 16 subitems were developed. Explanations and examples (E&E) for each item are also provided.
CONCLUSIONS: The working group hopes that the STRICTOTM, in conjunction with both the CONSORT statement and extension for nonpharmacologic treatment, can improve the reporting quality and transparency of Tuina/Massage clinical research.

Transparent reporting of nutrition research promotes rigor, reproducibility, and relevance to human nutrition. We performed a scoping review of recent articles reporting dietary folate interventions in mice as a case study to determine the reporting frequency of generic study design items (i.e., sex, strain, and age) and nutrition-specific items (i.e., base diet composition, intervention doses, duration, and exposure verification) in basic nutrition research. We identified 798 original research articles in the EMBASE, Medline, Food Science and Technology Abstracts (FSTA), Global Health, and International Pharmaceutical Abstracts (IPA) databases published between January 2009 and July 2021 in which a dietary folic acid (FA) intervention was used in mice. We identified 312 original peer-reviewed articles including 191 studies in nonpregnant and 126 in pregnant mice. Most studies reported sex (99%), strain (99%), and age (83%). The majority of studies used C57BL/6 (53%) or BALB/c (11%) mice aged 3-9 wk. Nonpregnancy studies were more likely to use only male mice (57%). Dietary FA interventions varied considerably and overlapped: deficiency (0-3 mg/kg), control (0-16 mg/kg), and supplemented (0-50 mg/kg). Only 63% of studies used an open-formula base diet with a declared FA content and 60% of studies verified FA exposure using folate status biomarkers. The duration of intervention ranged from 1 to 104 wk for nonpregnancy studies. The duration of intervention for pregnancy studies was 1-19 wk, occurring variably before pregnancy and/or during pregnancy and/or lactation. Overall, 17% of studies did not report ≥1 generic study design item(s) and 40% did not report ≥1 nutrition-specific study design item(s). The variability and frequent lack of reporting of important generic and nutrition-specific study design details in nutrition studies limit their generalizability, reproducibility, and interpretation. The use of reporting checklists for animal research would enhance reporting quality of key study design and conduct factors in animal-based nutrition research.

An increasing number of evaluations of social accountability (SA) interventions have been published in the past decade, however, reporting gaps make it difficult to summarize findings. We developed the Social Accountability Reporting for Research (SAR4Research) checklist to support researchers to improve the documentation of SA processes, context, study designs, and outcomes in the peer reviewed literature and to enhance application of findings.
We used a multi-step process, starting with an umbrella review of reviews on SA to identify reporting gaps. Next, we reviewed existing guidelines for reporting on behavioral interventions to determine whether one could be used in its current or adapted form. We received feedback from practitioners and researchers and tested the checklist through three worked examples using outcome papers from three SA projects.
Our umbrella review of SA studies identified reporting gaps in all areas, including gaps in reporting on the context, intervention components, and study methods. Because no existing guidelines called for details on context and the complex processes in SA interventions, we used CONSORT-SPI as the basis for the SAR4Research checklist, and adapted it using other existing checklists to fill gaps. Feedback from practitioners, researchers and the worked examples suggested the need to eliminate redundancies, add explanations for items, and clarify reporting for quantitative and qualitative study components.
Results of SA evaluations in the peer-reviewed literature will be more useful, facilitating learning and application of findings, when study designs, interventions and their context are described fully in one or a set of papers. This checklist will help authors report better in peer-reviewed journal articles. With sufficient information, readers will better understand whether the results can inform accountability strategies in their own contexts. As a field, we will be better able to identify emerging findings and gaps in our understanding of SA.

Transparent reporting of nutrition research promotes rigor, reproducibility, and relevance to human nutrition. We performed a scoping review of recent articles reporting dietary folate interventions in mice as a case study to determine the reporting frequency of generic study design items (i.e., sex, strain, and age) and nutrition-specific items (i.e., base diet composition, intervention doses, duration, and exposure verification) in basic nutrition research. We identified 798 original research articles in the EMBASE, Medline, Food Science and Technology Abstracts (FSTA), Global Health, and International Pharmaceutical Abstracts (IPA) databases published between January 2009 and July 2021 in which a dietary folic acid (FA) intervention was used in mice. We identified 312 original peer-reviewed articles including 191 studies in nonpregnant and 126 in pregnant mice. Most studies reported sex (99%), strain (99%), and age (83%). The majority of studies used C57BL/6 (53%) or BALB/c (11%) mice aged 3-9 wk. Nonpregnancy studies were more likely to use only male mice (57%). Dietary FA interventions varied considerably and overlapped: deficiency (0-3 mg/kg), control (0-16 mg/kg), and supplemented (0-50 mg/kg). Only 63% of studies used an open-formula base diet with a declared FA content and 60% of studies verified FA exposure using folate status biomarkers. The duration of intervention ranged from 1 to 104 wk for nonpregnancy studies. The duration of intervention for pregnancy studies was 1-19 wk, occurring variably before pregnancy and/or during pregnancy and/or lactation. Overall, 17% of studies did not report ≥1 generic study design item(s) and 40% did not report ≥1 nutrition-specific study design item(s). The variability and frequent lack of reporting of important generic and nutrition-specific study design details in nutrition studies limit their generalizability, reproducibility, and interpretation. The use of reporting checklists for animal research would enhance reporting quality of key study design and conduct factors in animal-based nutrition research.

To facilitate cross-sector integration of surveillance data it is necessary to improve and harmonize the meta-information provided in surveillance data reports. Cross-sector integration of surveillance results in sector-specific reports is frequently difficult as reports with a focus on a single sector often lack aspects of the relevant meta-information necessary to clarify the surveillance context. Such reporting deficiencies reduce the value of surveillance reports to the One Health community. The One Health Consensus Report Annotation Checklist (OH-CRAC), described in this paper along with potential application scenarios, was developed to improve the current practice of annotating data presented in surveillance data reports. It aims to provide guidance to researchers and reporting officers on what meta-information should be collected and provided to improve the completeness and transparency of surveillance data reports. The OH-CRAC can be adopted by all One Health-related sectors and due to its cross-sector design, it supports the mutual mapping of surveillance meta-information from sector-specific surveillance reports on federal, national and international levels. To facilitate the checklist completion, OH-CRAC is also available as an online resource that allows the collection of surveillance meta-information in an easy and user-friendly manner. Completed OH-CRAC checklists can be attached as annexes to the corresponding surveillance data reports or even to individual data files regardless of the data source. In this way, reports and data become better interpretable, usable and comparable to information from other sectors, improving their value for all surveillance actors and providing a better foundation for advice to risk managers.

BACKGROUND: Critical appraisal aids in assessing the quality of scientific literature, which is central to the practice of evidence-based medicine. Several tools and guidelines are available for critiquing and assessing the quality of specific study types. However, limited guidance exists for critical appraisal of clinical pharmacokinetic studies.
OBJECTIVE: We aimed to achieve experts\' consensus regarding the quality markers for clinical pharmacokinetic studies in an attempt to develop a critical appraisal tool.
METHODS: Quality markers related to clinical pharmacokinetic studies, were derived from the published literature and categorized according to manuscript reporting domains (abstract, introduction/background, methodology, results, discussion, and conclusion). Questions that aid in appraising pharmacokinetic studies were formulated from these quality markers. Experts were involved in a modified Delphi process to achieve a consensus regarding the formulated questions. The proposed tool was pilot tested on 30 recently published clinical pharmacokinetic studies. Inter-observer agreement was measured to determine the reliability of the included items.
RESULTS: Twenty-five experts consented to participate. Three rounds of a modified Delphi survey were required to generate a consensus for a 21-item tool aimed at appraising the quality of clinical pharmacokinetic studies. When applied to 30 recently published clinical pharmacokinetic studies, most items scored fair to moderate levels of agreement (61.90-95.24%).
CONCLUSIONS: The clinical pharmacokinetic critical appraisal tool (CACPK) developed in this study consisted of 21 items aimed at helping an end-user to determine the quality of a pharmacokinetic study. Further studies are warranted to reaffirm the validity and reliability of the CACPK tool.

BACKGROUND: To the best of our knowledge, there are no reporting guidelines for design, conduct and reporting of Finite Element studies in health sciences. We intend to propose specific and detailed guidelines for reporting these studies.
METHODS: After recognizing the need to have uniform guidelines for reporting of finite element analysis in medicine and dentistry, a group of 5 researchers working on FEA as their research area met in the summer of 2020 and drafted the methodology for the development of such guidelines. Each researcher individually made a list of major headings required for reporting these studies and met again in September 2020 to finalize the domains. Subsequently, sub headings and details were charted. The draft list of items for reporting the guidelines were presented to a larger team of 15 experts and some changes were further made based on their inputs.
RESULTS: The guidelines entail seven major domains and their sub-domains, including parameters for model structure, segmentation, mesh structure, force application and model validation, etc. This checklist aims to improvise the reporting and consistency of FEA studies.
CONCLUSIONS: We hope that the usage and adoption of these guidelines by the scientific community would result in more thoughtful and uniform documentation. Also, the confidence in the results would be enhanced through model reproducibility, reusability and accountability. The proposed guidelines were named as \'Reporting of in-silico studies using finite element analysis in medicine\' and the term \'RIFEM\' was used as acronym.